CAR_Public/170626.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, June 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 126



                            Headlines

AARONS INC: "Sevilla" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
ABBVIE INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Sidney Hillman Case Underway
ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual and Allied Services Suit Still Pending
ABBVIE INC: Says 90% of 695 Depakote Claims Pending
ABBVIE INC: Class Suit over Shire Securities Pending

ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: No Oral Argument Yet in Appeal
AIDS CARE: "Rosen" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Pennsylvania
AKORN INC: Shareholders Challenge $4.3B Sale to Fresenius
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Hussain" Suit

APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Hudson" Action v. Aviva Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Morrison and Sherman Class Suits Pending
APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement in Apollo Education Litigation Pending
APOLLO RESIDENTIAL: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suits Related to Sterling Merger Pending

AT&T CORP: Farrow Road Suit Moved to District of South Carolina
AVANGRID INC: Court Rejects Class Action Settlement
AVINGER INC: Johnson & Weaver Probes Potential Laws Violations
AVX CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits in US & Canada
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Farrell" Suit

BARCLAYS BANK: Faces "Knaak" Suit over Consumer Credit Report
BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces "Pritchard" Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit over DeckOver Resurfacer
BKUK CORPORATION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
BP DEEPWATER: Judge OKs Claimants to Take Cases to Court

BREMA INVESTMENTS: "Sifuentes" Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Borum Seeks Cert. of Brookland Residents Class
BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
BUSH ROSS: Faces "Kagno" Suit in Middle District of Florida
BUTLER AREA, PA: Insurers Must Defend School in Tainted Suit

CALPERS: Heinz Sues over Out-Of-Network Medical Expense Payments
CASCADE BANCORP: Suit by Sternheim Family Trust Pending
CASCADE BANCORP: "Crosse" Class Suit Dismissed
CASCADE BANCORP: "Parshall" Class Suit Pending in Oregon
CBE GROUP: Faces "Carall" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

CBE GROUP: Faces "Llive" Suit in Eastern District of New York
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Consolidated Complaint Pending
CENTURYLINK: 3 Class Actions Allege Billing Fraud
CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in "Tomasulo" Case Pending
CHICAGO BEAR: Faces "Beckman" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Accord Reached in Discount Prices Class Suit
CHINA AGRITECH: 9th Circuit Invites Successive Class Actions
CLARUS COMMERCE: Chandler Seeks Certification of Purchasers Class
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in E.D. New York
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Granted Class Certification

CONDOR SECURITIZATION: Deviese's Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn
CPN MECHANICAL: Wants to Dismiss DiFerro Contracting Class Suit
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Libby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
DASHEL INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
DATA SOFTWARE: " Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.

DAVIS VISION: Eye Care Providers Sue in Pennsylvania
DETROIT: Iraqi Nationals Sue over Deportation
DRF HOSPITALITY: Segarra Seeks to Recover Overtime, Minimum Wages
EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Cert. Process Underway in Wallboard Suit
EGS FINANCIAL: Faces Senior-Delao Suit in E.D. New York

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defends Suit by Former NFL Running Back
EPLUS INC: Received US$380,000 Payment from DRAM Class Action
EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
EXPRESS COURIER: "Suggs" Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
FIVE STAR: Faces "McCalla" Suit in District of New Jersey

FMS INVESTMENT: Hopson Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
GC SERVICES: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GC SERVICES: Faces "Roaldsen" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GENERAL MOTORS: Confident of India Dealer Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set on July 26

GENUINE TITLE: Attorneys in "Fangman" Gets $607K in Fees, Costs
GREAT AMERICAN CHICKEN: "King" Suit Moved to C.D. California
HARRIS VENTURES: "Naves" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination
HORIZON GLOBAL: Accused by Craftwood II Inc. of Violating TCPA
INDIANA, USA: Hines's Bid to Certify Denied Without Prejudice

INTEGRATED DEVICE: Class Actions on GigPeak Merger Closed in May
INTRAWEST RESORT: Shareholder Drops Class Action Over Merger Deal
INTUIT INC: Consolidated Class Suit on Identity Theft Underway
IOWA, USA: Fisher Moves to Certify Iowans With Disabilities Class
J. BALTAZAR: Faces "Rinaldi" Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania

JUNO USA: Shortchanges Employees, Drivers' Class Suit Claims
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Senne Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 9th Cir.
KAPILOFF'S GLASS: Fails to Pay Full Wages & Overtime, Moore Says
KEMPHARM INC: Class Lawsuit in Iowa Still in Preliminary Stage
KISS MY FACE: "Maniaci" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York

LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
LEROY BACA: 9th Cir. Hears Appeal over Class Action Dismissal
LIFE ALERT: Payments to Begin to Class Members
MDL 1566: $15 Million Accord in Natural Gas Suit Has Initial OK
MDL 2143: hhgregg Seeks to Sell Class Action Assets

MDL 2545: 230 TRT Claims v. AbbVie Pending in State Courts
MDL 2779: Neshannock Suit v. FieldTurf Transferred to D.N.J.
MELCON GENERAL: Faces Sunbelt Rentals Class Suit in New York
MERCEDES BENZ: Could Face Potential Suit Over Burning Smart Cars
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: "Saska" Class Deal Has Final Court Approval

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. California
MONSANTO CO: Blitz et al. Sue over Roundup Pesticide in Wisconsin
MONSANTO CO: Overstreet Sues over Roundup Pesticide in E.D. Pa.
MRO CORPORATION: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit
NBTY INC: "Petkevicius" Disputes Gingko Biloba Health Claims

NBTY INC: Dachauer Appeals From N.D. Cal. Order to Ninth Circuit
NEW YORK: Penn Station Commuters File Lawsuit Against MTA, LIRR
NEXTEP FUNDING: Prayitno's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Hearing on July 12
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Cotton" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
NRA GROUP: Faces "Merabishvili" Suit in E.D. New York

OREGON LOTTERY: Appeals Court Rejects "Curzi" Suit
PAYSON PETROLEUM: Financial West Moves "Moore" Suit to N.D. Tex.
PERRIGO CO: New Jersey Securities Litigation Underway
PERRIGO CO: Tel Aviv-Jaffa Securities Class Suit Remains Stayed
PERRIGO CO: In Mediation with Parties to Settle Eltroxin Lawsuit

PFIZER: Consolidated Cholesterol Drug Cases Lack Critical Mass
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Appeal from Securities Case Dismissal Pending
SANTA FE NATURAL: Judge Hears Arguments on Cigarette Marketing
SEARS BRAND: Abante Sues Over Auto-dialed Sales Calls
SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Defends Labor Class Lawsuits at Apr. 29

SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Clarke" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Magana Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
SIRIUS XM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Flo & Eddie Suit
SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Settles Arkansas Class Action Litigation
SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeal over Remand of PERS of MS Suit Pending

STATE FARM: Insurers Cheat Builders, Bob Porto Class Suit Claims
STATE FARM: "Castenada" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas
SUNBEAM CONSUMER: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
SUPERCOM LTD: Still Defends Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit
SYMANTEC CORP: Appeal from Settlement Approval Order Pending

SYSCO CORP: Suit by Lit'l Pepper Gourmet Moved to S.D. California
TABATCHNICK FINE: Resolves Spat Over GMO Ingredients
TRANSUNION LLC: Jury Awards $60MM to Consumers in FCRA Class Suit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Orders $500 Bond in Case Appeal
UBER TECH: Drivers Ask Judge to Nullify Arbitration Clauses

UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Oregon Court Dismisses Suit Over Cascade Ice
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED VAN: Delivery Truck Drivers Alleges Misclassified Status
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "Heed" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
USAA CASUALTY: "Levine" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida

VICTORY: Settles Suit for 40,000 Free Plastic Shopping Bags
VIRGIN AMERICA: Class Suit by Flight Attendants Pending
VWR CORP: Bushansky et al. Challenge $6.4B Sale to Avantor
WISCONSIN: Juvenile Inmates File Civil Rights Lawsuit
WORD ENTERPRISES: McFarlin Moves to Certify Class of Drivers

WWF OPERATING: Suit over Silk Almondmilk Label Referred to FDA

* House Votes to Get Rid of Some Consumer Protections



                            *********



AARONS INC: "Sevilla" Suit Removed From Super. Ct. to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Arminda Sevilla v. Aarons, Inc., et al., Case
No. BC659590, filed on April 28, 2017, was removed from Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Los Angeles) on May 31, 2017.  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:17-cv-04053-DMG-E to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Aaron's, Inc., a leading omnichannel
provider of lease-purchase solutions was founded in 1955, has been
publicly traded since 1982, and owns the Aarons, Progressive
Leasing and HELPcard brands.  Aaron's engages in the sales and
lease ownership and specialty retailing of furniture, consumer
electronics, home appliances and accessories through its more than
1,860 Company-operated and franchised stores in 47 states and
Canada as well as its e-commerce platform Aarons.com.[BN]

Plaintiff Arminda Sevilla, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
is represented by:

          Andrew J. Malatesta, Esq.
          Shadie Latae Berenji, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM APC
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855-3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
          E-mail: Malatesta@employeejustice.law
                  berenji@employeejustice.law

Defendant Aarons, Inc., a Georgia corporation, is represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Andrew M. McNaught, Esq.
          Michael Williams Stevens, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW
          560 Mission Street 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
                  amcnaught@seyfarth.com
                  mwstevens@seyfarth.com


ABBVIE INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Sidney Hillman Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of
the case, Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester, et al. v.
AbbVie Inc., et al., remains pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

In August 2013, a putative class action lawsuit, Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was
filed against AbbVie in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by three healthcare benefit
providers alleging violations of Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes and state deceptive business
practice and unjust enrichment laws in connection with
reimbursements for certain uses of Depakote from 1998 to 2012.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and/or equitable relief and
attorneys' fees.

In February 2017, the court dismissed this lawsuit with prejudice
and in March 2017, the plaintiffs appealed that dismissal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Medical Mutual and Allied Services Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against
the cases, Medical Mutual of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., and
Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVie Inc., et al.

In November 2014, a putative class action lawsuit, Medical Mutual
of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., et al., was filed against several
manufacturers of testosterone replacement therapies (TRTs),
including AbbVie, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all insurance
companies, health benefit providers, and other third party payors
who paid for TRTs, including AndroGel. The claims asserted include
violations of the federal RICO Act and state consumer fraud and
deceptive trade practices laws. The complaint seeks monetary
damages and injunctive relief.

A similar lawsuit, Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. AbbVie
Inc., et al., was filed in the same court in October 2015 on
behalf of the same putative class members and a putative class of
consumers.

No other updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Says 90% of 695 Depakote Claims Pending
---------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that product liability cases are pending in
which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie did not adequately
warn about risk of certain injuries, primarily various birth
defects, arising from use of Depakote. Over ninety percent of the
approximately 695 claims are pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, and the rest are
pending in various other federal and state courts. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ABBVIE INC: Class Suit over Shire Securities Pending
----------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that class action lawsuit over Shire plc
(Shire) securities still pending.

In November 2014, five individuals filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers and sellers of certain Shire plc
(Shire) securities between June 20 and October 14, 2014, against
AbbVie and its chief executive officer in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that
the defendants made and/or are responsible for material
misstatements in violation of federal securities laws in
connection with AbbVie's proposed transaction with Shire.

No other updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: No Oral Argument Yet in Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the exact date of
the oral argument in a class action appeal has not yet been set.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc.,
Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate
Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of
Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504. The complaint alleges that we violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about
our Accelerate Pheno(TM) system, formerly called the BACcel
System. Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our stock
between March 7, 2014, and February 17, 2015."

"On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class. On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or
misleading statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and by
allegedly employing schemes to defraud. Plaintiff sought
certification of the action as a class action, compensatory
damages for the class in an unspecified amount, legal fees and
costs, and such other relief as the court may order.

"Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 21,
2015. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with
prejudice on January 28, 2016.

"On February 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
challenges the dismissal of the amended complaint. Chang v.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., No. 2:15-CV-00504-SPL (9th
Cir. filed Feb. 26, 2016). The appeal has been fully briefed and
is pending. On January 27, 2017, the appellate court informed the
Company that this case is being considered for oral argument,
although the exact date has not yet been set."

Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. is an in vitro diagnostics company
dedicated to providing solutions that improve patient outcomes and
lower healthcare costs through the rapid diagnosis of serious
infections.


AIDS CARE: "Rosen" Suit Moved to Eastern District of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled ASHLEY ROSEN and PETER MARTIN ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PLAINTIFFS, the
Plaintiffs, v. AIDS CARE GROUP, the Defendants, Case No. 2017-
004490, was removed on June 19, 2017, from the Court of Common
Pleas of Delaware County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02751-GEKP to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Gene E.K.
Pratter.[BN]

The AIDS Care Group is a non-profit agency serving the HIV
positive community in Delaware County, Pennsylvania and
surrounding counties.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Davey, Esq.
          ECKELL SPARKS LEVY AUERBACH
          MONTE RAINER & SLOANE, P.C.
          300 West State Street, Ste 300
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 565 3700
          Facsimile: (610) 565 1596
          E-mail: mdavey@eckellsparks.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn Anne Pellegrini, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market St., 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
          Telephone: (215) 665 8500
          Facsimile: (215) 864 8999
          E-mail: pellegrinic@ballardspahr.com


AKORN INC: Shareholders Challenge $4.3B Sale to Fresenius
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Akorn directors are selling the pharmaceutical company too cheaply
through an unfair process to (nonparty) Fresenius, for $34 a share
or $4.3 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in
Chicago.

The case is captioned, ROBERT CARLYLE, Plaintiff, v. AKORN, INC.,
JOHN N. KAPOOR, KENNETH S. ABRAMOWITZ, ADRIENNE L. GRAVES, RONALD
M. JOHNSON, STEVEN J. MEYER, TERRY A. RAPPUHN, BRIAN TAMBI, and
ALAN WEINSTEIN, Defendants. Case: 1:17-cv-04455 (N.D. Ill., June
13, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
     Daniel R. Ferri, Esq.
     DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
     Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-214-7900
     E-mail: alevitt@dlcfirm.com
             dferri@dlcfirm.com

          - and -

     Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
     BROWER PIVEN A Professional Corporation
     475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: 212-501-9000
     E-mail: kuznicki@browerpiven.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is captioned as Jacob Leitner, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Alltran Financial, LP, formerly known as: United Recovery Systems,
L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03728 (E.D.N.Y., June 20,
2017).

Alltran Financial specializes in revenue cycle, accounts
receivable, and contact center solutions within healthcare,
financial services, and higher education.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Hussain" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Choudry M. Hussain asks the Court to enter an order determining
that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action captioned
CHOUDRY M. HUSSAIN, individually and on behalf of a class v.
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP and, URS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
03571-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y.), may proceed as a class action against
the Defendants.

The class consists of (a) all natural persons (b) with New York
addresses (c) who were sent a letter seeking to collect a debt (d)
in the form of Exhibit A (e) which includes the language "Current
Amount Due" and (f) has a "Current Amount Due" that is the same as
the "Total of debt due at charge-off" (g) which letter was sent on
or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action and
ending 20 days after the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks that Shaked Law Group, P.C., and
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, be appointed counsel for
the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LUi8w9rT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          44 Court Street, Suite 1217
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          Facsimile: (718) 504-7555
          E-mail: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss "Hudson" Action v. Aviva Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has not
yet decided the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit against
Aviva plc.

On June 12, 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ("California Court") by Rachel Silva ("Silva") and Don
Hudson ("Hudson"), on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Aviva plc; Athene Annuity and Life
Company f/k/a Aviva Life and Annuity Company ("Aviva"); Athene USA
Corporation f/k/a Aviva USA Corporation; Athene Holding; Athene
Life Re Ltd.; Athene Asset Management; and AGM. The original
complaint in this action alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections
1962(c) and (d). The plaintiffs alleged that commencing in 2007
and continuing thereafter, Aviva and its then management engaged
in a scheme to, among other things, falsely represent the
financial strength of and hide the true financial condition of
Aviva by, among other things, allegedly ceding risky liabilities
to Aviva's undercapitalized subsidiaries and affiliates,
misvaluing assets, and failing to make required disclosures to
purchasers of policies, and that after Athene Holding purchased
all of the outstanding stock of Aviva's parent effective October
2, 2013 the scheme was "unwound and rewound" so as to continue,
and that as a result thereof some of the purchasers of annuity
products issued by Aviva were charged an excessive price and were
damaged as a result thereof.

All defendants (except Aviva plc) (a) moved to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa ("Iowa Court") and (b) moved to dismiss this
action.

Aviva plc separately moved to dismiss the action for lack of
jurisdiction over it.

The California Court granted the motion to transfer to the Iowa
Court and denied without prejudice the motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff Hudson moved for leave to amend the complaint, which
motion was granted by the Iowa Court. The amended complaint
removed Silva as a named plaintiff and removed Aviva plc as a
defendant, but otherwise substantively makes the same or similar
allegations.

The Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and
that motion has been fully briefed.

On November 14, 2016, the Court stayed its decision on the motion
to dismiss until the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals renders its
decision in a different case that has some of the same
jurisdictional issues and stayed additional discovery until the
Court decides the motion to dismiss.

On April 13, 2017, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's
decision to dismiss the other case. The Court has not yet decided
the motion to dismiss in this case.

If the action is not dismissed, Athene Asset Management and AGM
(and the other defendants) will deny the material allegations of
the amended complaint and will vigorously defend themselves
against these claims. Although neither Athene Asset Management nor
AGM can predict the ultimate outcome of this action, each believes
that it is without merit, and because this action is in its early
stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be
made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Morrison and Sherman Class Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action
lawsuits captioned as, Elizabeth Morrison v. Ray Berry, et. al.,
and Bruce S. Sherman and Bruce & Cynthia Sherman Charitable
Foundation, Inc. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., remain
pending.

Following the March 14, 2016 announcement that The Fresh Market,
Inc. ("TFM") had entered into a merger agreement with certain
entities affiliated with Apollo (the "TFM Merger Agreement"), two
Petitions for Appraisal of Stock were filed in the Chancery Court
for the State of Delaware.

The first, captioned Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. and Brigade
Leveraged Capital Structures Fund, Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc.,
was filed May 23, 2016 on behalf of holders of 1,660,000 shares of
common stock of TFM and names only TFM as the respondent. The
second captioned Verition Multi-Strategy Master Ltd. and Verition
Partners Master Fund Ltd. v. The Fresh Market, Inc. was filed
August 22, 2016 on behalf of holders of 1,198,318 shares of common
stock of TFM and names only TFM as the respondent.

Both actions seek a determination of the fair value of the shares
of the common stock of TFM under Section 262 of the Delaware
Corporate Code.

The two actions have since been consolidated and will proceed
together under the caption, In re Appraisal of The Fresh Market,
Inc., Case No. 12372-VCG (the "Appraisal Action"). The Court in
the Appraisal Action has scheduled a trial on the merits to take
place in November 2017.

In addition, a purported shareholder class action, captioned
Elizabeth Morrison v. Ray Berry, et. al., Case No. 12808-VCG, was
filed October 6, 2016 in the Chancery Court for the State of
Delaware and names as defendants TFM's former officers and
directors (the "Morrison Action"). The Morrison Action alleges,
among other things, that the TFM officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to the TFM shareholders in connection with
their consideration and approval of the TFM Merger Agreement,
including by engaging in a sale process that improperly favored
AGM and/or Apollo Management VIII, L.P., by agreeing to an
inadequate price and by filing materially deficient disclosures
regarding the transaction.

The Court has not yet set a schedule for resolving this Action on
the merits.

Subsequently, a purported shareholder class action, captioned
Bruce S. Sherman and Bruce & Cynthia Sherman Charitable
Foundation, Inc. v. The Fresh Market, Inc., et. al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00179, was filed March 3, 2017 in federal district court
in the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Sherman Action").
The Sherman Action names as defendants, in addition to TFM, the
former members of its Board of Directors, as well as AGM and
certain of its affiliates. The Sherman Action alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated federal securities laws based
on purported material misstatements and omissions contained in
public filings related to the TFM Merger Agreement. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, rescission of the various transactions
associated with the merger and/or rescissory or other damages, and
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

The Court has not yet set a schedule for resolving this action on
the merits.

Because each of the pending actions is in the early stages, no
reasonable estimate of possible loss, if any, can be made. Apollo
believes that each of these actions is without merit.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Settlement in Apollo Education Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in
the case, Apollo Education Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
remains pending.

Between February 25 and March 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed five
putative class actions in the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona, on behalf of purported stockholders of Apollo Education
Group, Inc. ("AEG") asserting claims for breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting the alleged breaches in connection
with a proposed acquisition of AEG.  The  defendants include,
among others, AEG, members of AEG's board of directors, AGM, Fund
VIII, and certain subdisiaries of funds managed by Apollo.

On April 12, 2016, the Court consolidated all the actions under
the following caption:  In re Apollo Education Group, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV2016-001905 (Ariz. Super.
Ct.).  Shortly thereafter, the parties informed the Court that
they had entered into a memorandum of understanding for a
settlement that would, among other things, (i) provide for the
dismissal with prejudice on the merits and release of any and all
claims by the proposed class against the Defendants; and (ii)
recognize that the pendency of the suit was, in part, a factor in
the decision by the purchasers of AEG to increase the price
offered to acquire all of the outstanding shares of AEG's common
stock from $9.50 per share to $10.00 per share.

On April 10, 2017, the parties filed settlement papers for the
Court's review following the consummation of the merger agreement
on February 1, 2017, the completion by plaintiffs of three
confirmatory discovery depositions on February 27, 2017, and the
execution of a stipulation of settlement by the parties on April
10, 2017.

The settlement papers include, among other things, (i) the
stipulation of settlement, (ii) a proposed class notice, (iii) a
memorandum of law in support of preliminary approval, and (iv) a
proposed order that, among other things, provisionally certifies
the settlement class, sets a date for the settlement hearing,
grants preliminary approval, and institutes a stay of all
proceedings in the action other than settlement-related
proceedings pending a ruling on a motion for final approval.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


APOLLO RESIDENTIAL: Motions to Dismiss Shareholder Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants'
motions to dismiss the case, Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, remains pending.

After the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger among Apollo Commercial Real Estate Finance, Inc.,
Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. and Arrow Merger Sub, Inc.
("Merger Sub"), two putative class action lawsuits challenging the
proposed merger, captioned Aivasian v. Apollo Residential
Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001532, and Wiener v. Apollo
Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-001837, were filed
in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. A putative class and
derivative lawsuit was later filed in the same Court, captioned
Crago v. Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-16-
002610.

Following a hearing on May 6, 2016, the Court entered orders among
other things, consolidating the three actions under the caption In
Re Apollo Residential Mortgage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case
No.: 24-C-16-002610. The plaintiffs have designated the Crago
complaint as the operative complaint. The operative complaint
includes both direct and derivative claims, names as defendants
AGM, AMTG, the board of directors of AMTG (the "AMTG Board"), ARI,
Merger Sub and Athene Holding and alleges, among other things,
that the members of the AMTG Board breached their fiduciary duties
to AMTG's stockholders and that the other defendants aided and
abetted such fiduciary breaches. The operative complaint further
alleges, among other things, that the proposed merger involves
inadequate consideration, was the result of an inadequate and
conflicted sales process, and includes unreasonable deal
protection devices that purportedly preclude competing offers. It
also alleges that the transactions with Athene Holding are unfair
and that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC
on April 6, 2016 contains materially misleading disclosures and
omits certain material information. The operative complaint seeks,
among other things, certification of the proposed class,
declaratory relief, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief,
including enjoining or rescinding the merger, unspecified damages,
and an award of other unspecified attorneys' and other fees and
costs.

On May 6, 2016, counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the Court a
stipulation seeking the appointment of interim co-lead counsel,
which stipulation was approved by the Court on June 9, 2016.
Defendants' motions to dismiss have been fully briefed, and oral
argument was held on December 8, 2016.

Apollo believes that the claims asserted in the complaints are
without merit. For this reason, and because the claims are in
their early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible loss, if
any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Suits Related to Sterling Merger Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company
continues to defend against the Sterling Merger-related
Litigation.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Sterling Merger
Agreement, a number of lawsuits challenging the proposed Sterling
Merger were filed: (1) MSS 1209 Trust v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, et al, Index No. 602161/2017, filed March 13, 2017 in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, or
the MSS Complaint; (2) Parshall v. Astoria Financial Corporation,
et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-02165, filed April 10, 2017 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the
Parshall Complaint; (3) Minzer v. Astoria Financial Corporation,
et al., Case No. 2017-0284, filed April 12, 2017 in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, or the Minzer Complaint; (4)
O'Connell v. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al., Index No.
603703/2017, filed April 28, 2017 in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau, or the O'Connell Complaint,
and together with the MSS Complaint and the Minzer Complaint, the
State Court Complaints; and (5) Jenkins v. Astoria Financial
Corporation, et al., filed May 2, 2017 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the
Jenkins Complaint, and together with the Parshall Complaint, the
Federal Complaints. Each of these lawsuits is a putative class
action filed on behalf of stockholders of Astoria and names as
defendants Astoria, its directors and Sterling.

The State Court Complaints generally allege that the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
approval of the Sterling Merger Agreement because they failed to
properly value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to
Astoria's public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger
consideration. The State Court Complaints further variously allege
that the directors of Astoria approved the Sterling Merger through
a flawed sales process, alleging the absence of a competitive
sales process and that the process was tainted by certain alleged
conflicts of interest on the part of the Astoria directors. The
State Court Complaints also allege that the directors of Astoria
breached their fiduciary duties because they agreed to
unreasonable deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria,
including, among others, a no solicitation provision that
allegedly prevents other buyers from participating in discussions
which may lead to a superior proposal, a recurring and unlimited
information rights provision, which allegedly gives Astoria 24
hours to provide Sterling unfettered access to confidential, non-
public information about competing proposals from third parties,
and a provision that requires Astoria to pay Sterling a
termination fee of $75.7 million under certain circumstances. The
State Court Complaints further allege that Sterling aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria Board of
Directors.

The Federal Complaints variously allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by disseminating a registration
statement that omits material information with respect to the
Sterling Merger, including because it allegedly omits material
information regarding Astoria's and Sterling's financial
projections and financial analyses performed by their respective
financial advisors, as well as material information regarding the
process leading to the proposed Sterling Merger. The O'Connell
Complaint and the Minzer Complaint also allege that the
registration statement is materially misleading.

Plaintiffs in the state and federal actions seek, among other
things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed Sterling
Merger, additional disclosure, rescission of the transaction or
rescissory damages if the Sterling Merger is consummated, and an
award of costs and attorneys' fees.

In addition, on April 26, 2017, a lawsuit challenging the proposed
Sterling Merger was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Rockland, Garfield v. Sterling Bancorp, et al,
Index No. 031888/2017. This lawsuit is also a putative class
action, but was brought on behalf of the stockholders of Sterling
and names Sterling, its directors, and Astoria as defendants. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that Astoria has aided and
abetted a breach of the Sterling directors' fiduciary duty of
candor by jointly filing a materially deficient and misleading
proxy statement. The complaint states that plaintiffs are seeking
an order, requiring, among other things, the defendants to cause
Sterling to make corrective and complete disclosures on the proxy
statement, or enjoinment and unwinding of the proposed Sterling
Merger Agreement if they do not, and an award of rescissory and
other damages to plaintiffs, including attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants believe these actions are without merit.
Accordingly, no liability or reserve has been recognized in our
consolidated statement of financial condition at March 31, 2017
with respect to these matters.

Other potential plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits
challenging the proposed Sterling Merger. The outcome of the
pending and any additional future litigation is uncertain. If the
cases are not resolved, these lawsuits could result in substantial
costs to Astoria, including any costs associated with the
indemnification of Astoria's directors and officers. No assurance
can be given at this time that the litigation against us will be
resolved in our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to
defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our
financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately,
any such impact will not be material.


AT&T CORP: Farrow Road Suit Moved to District of South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Farrow Road Dental Group, P.A.
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AT&T, Corp.,
and Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC doing business as: AT&T
Southeast doing business as: AT&T South Carolina, Case No. 2017-
CP-40-02791, was removed on June 20, 2017 from the Richland County
Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina (Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-01615-CMC to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie.

Farrow Road is a local, trusted dental practice offering general
and cosmetic dentistry, teeth whitening, implants, and
veneers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley D Hewett, Esq.
          MIKE KELLY LAW GROUP
          PO Box 8113
          Columbia, SC 29202
          Telephone: (803) 461 2154
          E-mail: bhewett@mklawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin Rush Smith, III, Esq.
          Carmen Harper Thomas, Esq.
          Phillips Lancaster McWilliams, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
          PO Box 11070
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 799 2000
          Facsimile: (803) 256 7500
          E-mail: rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com
                  carmen.thomas@nelsonmullins.com
                  phillips.mcwilliams@nelsonmullins.com


AVANGRID INC: Court Rejects Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has denied
the unopposed settlement and petition for plaintiffs' counsel fees
in the class action lawsuit related to the Company's acquisition
of UIL Holdings Corporation.

The Company said, "On February 27, 2015, a complaint was filed in
Connecticut state court against us, UIL, its board of directors
and others related to our acquisition of UIL.  The complaint is a
class action filed on behalf of all UIL shareowners.  The
complaint generally alleges that UIL's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareowner value in
negotiating and approving the acquisition, and that we, UIL,
and/or Morgan Stanley aided and abetted the UIL Board's alleged
breaches."

"On November 30, 2015, the plaintiffs and the defendants executed
a binding Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, that sets forth the
terms on which the parties have agreed to settle the consolidated
action.  The settlement terms do not include any change in the
acquisition consideration but only additional disclosures relating
to information included in our Registration Statement on Form S-4
filed with the SEC, which was declared effective on November 12,
2015, additional confirmatory discovery, and plaintiffs' counsel
fees.  The parties have agreed on the fees and submitted the
unopposed settlement and dismissal to the Court on August 26,
2016. On November 4, 2016, the Court issued its preliminary
approval of the settlement, there were no objections to the
settlement, and on January 30, 2017, the Court held a final
settlement hearing.

On April 10, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the unopposed
settlement and petition for plaintiffs' counsel fees.

"We are reviewing the court's decision. We cannot predict the
ultimate outcome of this matter," the Company said.

AVANGRID is a diversified energy and utility company with more
than $31 billion in assets and operations in 27 states. The
company operates regulated utilities and electricity generation
through two primary lines of business. Avangrid Networks is
comprised of eight electric and natural gas utilities, serving
approximately 3.2 million customers in New York and New England.
Avangrid Renewables operates 6.5 gigawatts of electricity
capacity, primarily through wind power, in 22 states across the
United States. AVANGRID employs approximately 6,800 people.
AVANGRID was formed by a merger between Iberdrola USA, Inc. and
UIL Holdings Corporation in 2015. Iberdrola S.A., or Iberdrola, a
corporation (sociedad an¢nima) organized under the laws of the
Kingdom of Spain, a worldwide leader in the energy industry,
directly owns 81.6% of the outstanding shares of AVANGRID common
stock.


AVINGER INC: Johnson & Weaver Probes Potential Laws Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by certain officers and directors of
Avinger, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVGR). Avinger, located in Redwood City,
CA, is a commercial-stage medical device company that designs,
manufactures, and sells image-guided and catheter-based systems
used by physicians to treat patients with peripheral arterial
disease.

A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Avinger traceable to Avinger's January 30, 2015
initial public offering. According to the lawsuit, the documents
filed in connection with the IPO contained materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Avinger
did not have adequate sales and marketing personnel to increase
sales of its lumivascular platform products and to commercialize
Pantheris; (2) Avinger had already experienced problems with the
robustness of its lumivascular platform devices, including
Pantheris; (3) physicians and hospitals were requiring more
extensive and comprehensive training and education on the benefits
of Avinger's products to convince them to adopt and implement
Avinger's lumivascular platform products compared to competing
products and procedures available in the market; (4) in turn,
Avinger would not be able to achieve a rapid ramp rate for
increased sales of its lumivascular platform; and (5) as a result,
Avinger was experiencing lower sales and revenues. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or if you purchased Avinger
stock and interested in learning more about the investigation or
your legal rights and remedies, please contact Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or phone at 619-814-4471. If
emailing, please include a phone number. [GN]


AVX CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Class Suits in US & Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation continues to face class action suits pending in
the United States and Canada related to violations of anti-trust
laws, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2017.

The Company said, "During calendar year 2014, AVX was named as a
co-defendant in a series of cases filed in the United States and
in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba alleging violations of United States,
state and Canadian antitrust laws and asserting that AVX and
numerous other companies were participants in alleged price-fixing
in the capacitor market.  The cases in the United States were
consolidated into the Northern District of California on October
2, 2014.  Some plaintiffs have broken off from the United States
class action and filed actions on their own. These cases are still
at their initial stages. AVX believes it has meritorious defenses
and intends to vigorously defend the cases."

AVX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures and
supplies various passive electronic components, interconnect
devices, and related products worldwide.  The company operates
through three segments: Passive Components, Kyocera Electronic
Devices (KED Resale), and Interconnect.  The Company markets its
products through its direct sales force and independent
manufacturers' representatives to multi-national original
equipment manufacturers, independent electronic component
distributors, and electronic manufacturing service providers.  The
Company was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Fountain Inn,
South Carolina.  AVX Corporation is a subsidiary of Kyocera
Corporation.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Order in "Farrell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bank of America, N.A., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Joanne Farrell v. Bank of America,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-L-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the purported
class action lawsuit was commenced against Bank of America on
February 25, 2016.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services
corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The appellate case is captioned as Joanne Farrell v. Bank of
America, Case No. 17-55847, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 14, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- Appellant Bank of America's opening brief is due on
      September 22, 2017;

   -- Appellee Joanne Farrell's answering brief is due on
      October 23, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee JOANNE FARRELL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Bryan Scott Gowdy, Esq.
          MILLS CREED & GOWDY, P.A.
          865 May Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 350-0075
          Facsimile: (904) 350-0086
          E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: Jkaliel@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT LLP
          707 Broadway, 10th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG KEECHL
          200 Southwest 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com

Defendant-Appellant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Jonathan Hacker, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5327
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com

               - and -

          Matthew W. Close, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          E-mail: mclose@omm.com

               - and -

          Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7921
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: doakley@omm.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Faces "Knaak" Suit over Consumer Credit Report
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles claims Barclays Bank
"willfully and systematically report(s) negative and inaccurate
information on consumers' credit report," specifically, debts that
have been discharged in bankruptcy.

The case is captioned, WENDI KNAAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, vs. BARCLAYS BANK,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-04537-PSG-RAO (C.D. Cal. June 20, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     G. Thomas Martin, III Esq.
     Nicholas J. Bontrager Esq.
     MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
     6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 960
     Los Angeles, CA 90028
     Telephone: (323) 940-1700
     Fax: (323) 238-8095
     E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
             nick@mblawapc.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: Faces "Pritchard" Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bimbo Bakeries USA,
Inc. The case is titled as Leroy Pritchard, Anthony Legare, and
Steven Austin, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. and Bimbo
Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-
cv-01083-ARC (M.D. Pa., June 20, 2017). The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge A. Richard Caputo.

Bimbo Bakeries is the American corporate arm of the Mexican
multinational bakery product manufacturing company Grupo Bimbo. It
is the largest bakery company in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry H. Dyller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY H. DYLLER
          88 North Franklin St.
          Gettysburg House
          Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
          Telephone: (570) 829 4860
          E-mail: barry.dyller@dyllerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


BEHR PROCESS: Faces "Bishop" Suit over DeckOver Resurfacer
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
federal court that Behr's DeckOver resurfacer that it sells
exclusively at Home Depot deteriorates within weeks or months and
damages the surfaces it is meant to protect.

The case is captioned, KATHLEEN BISHOP, NANCY GRAF, JEANNE HAMAN,
TOM PAUL, and MARK SUMPTER, individually and on behalf of the
putative class, Plaintiffs, v. BEHR PROCESS CORP., a California
corporation, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-04464 (N.D. Ill., June 13, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
     Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
     LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
     211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312) 750-1265
     E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
             kshamberg@litedepalma.com
             isalam@litedepalma.com


BKUK CORPORATION: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bkuk Corporation.
The case is entitled as Yovani Sanchez Gomez, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bkuk
Corporation, Besim Kukaj, Luan Kukaj, and Adrian Lazo, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04652 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BP DEEPWATER: Judge OKs Claimants to Take Cases to Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gueguen, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
federal judge recently decided to allow claimants with unpaid
claims stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and the
six-month federal drilling stoppage after the spill to take their
cases to court.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's March 17 decision came nearly
seven years after the spill, which spewed 4.9 million barrels into
the Gulf of Mexico, according to the U.S. Coast Guard.

"There are a lot of different litigations, but in class-action
litigation, [attorneys] get the class certified, and then those
claims, in this particular instance, were resolved through a
settlement," Bill Goodell, an environmental law professor at
Tulane University, told the Louisiana Record. "And, pending
resolution of those class claims, it's not uncommon for the court
to allow or have the individual private claimants who opt out of
the class, as they say, to litigate their claims after class
issues are resolved."

Goodell said the class-action settlement in the case equated to a
set dollar amount for the class.

"There was a mechanism in place for people to submit their claims
and have them paid," Goodell said. "And a lot of those have gone
through the process. There are other people, and for whatever
reason, [they] felt like they wanted to have their day in court
and individually present to a jury or a judge their measure of
damage, how they've been injured."

Goodell said people with bigger cases will occasionally decide
against being part of a class-action lawsuit.

"Particularly, if you've got landowners with contamination issues
. . . . " he said. "In the Grand Isle area, there was oil that's
still being exposed on the beach, so those people may have been
concerned about getting lumped in with everyone else and wanted to
individually pursue their own remedy, obviously because they think
they're going to be better off pursuing it as an individual."

Goodell said claimants can decide whether they want to stay out of
a class, but it is unclear if the claims that Barbier decided
could now enter court were claimants who had decided against being
part of the class-action lawsuit. [GN]


BREMA INVESTMENTS: "Sifuentes" Suit Seek Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Ann Sifuentes, Elissa Montgomery, Shara Grubbs and Samantha
Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brema Investments, LLC (d/b/a Griswold
Homecare) and Brenda Gross, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01742
(S.D. Tex., June 8, 2017), seeks to recover back pay, unpaid
overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Brema Investments, LLC operates as Griswold Homecare, a company
providing a variety of home care, elder care and personal care
services in Houston where Plaintiffs worked as caregivers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
      Laura A. Hernandez, Esq.
      TB Robinson Law Group, PLLC
      1616 S. Voss Rd., Suite 870
      Houston, TX 77057
      Phone: (713) 568-1723
      Facsimile: (713) 965-4288
      Email: TRobinson@TBRobinsonlaw.com
             LHernandez@TBRobinsonlaw.com


BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Borum Seeks Cert. of Brookland Residents Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ADRIANN BORUM, et al. v.
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01723-RC
(D.D.C.), move for certification of this class:

     All households who reside or have resided at Brookland Manor
     in a three-, four-, or five-bedroom unit with one or more
     minor child, and (i) have been displaced from a three-,
     four-, or five-bedroom unit at Brookland Manor since
     October 1, 2014 (the date that Defendants proposed their
     First Stage PUD to the Zoning Commission), or (ii) are at
     risk of being displaced from a three-, four-, or five-
     bedroom unit at Brookland Manor.

Plaintiffs Adriann Borum and Lorretta Holloman brought the lawsuit
under the Fair Housing Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act.  The
Plaintiffs also seek appointment of class counsel under Rule
23(g)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6POKTGo1

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen F. Browne, Esq.
          Nooree Lee, Esq.
          Samuel Adriance, Esq.
          Amber M. Charles, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One CityCenter
          850 10th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          E-mail: mbrowne@cov.com
                  nlee@cov.com
                  sadriance@cov.com
                  acharles@cov.com

               - and -

          Matthew Handley, Esq.
          Catherine Cone, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          & URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: matthew_handley@washlaw.org
                  catherine_cone@washlaw.org


BROOKSTONE COMPANY: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brookstone Company,
Inc. The case is captioned as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Brookstone
Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03733 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 21, 2017).

Brookstone Company operates as a specialty retailer primarily in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BUSH ROSS: Faces "Kagno" Suit in Middle District of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bush Ross, P.A.  The
case is styled as Juliet Kagno, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bush Ross, P.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-01468-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 19,
2017).  The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard A. Lazzara.

Bush Ross, P.A. is a law firm that provides legal advisory
services focusing on commercial litigation and transactions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


BUTLER AREA, PA: Insurers Must Defend School in Tainted Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on June 9 found that two insurance companies have a
duty to defend a school district against a proposed class action
over alleged water contamination, saying the at-issue pollution
exclusions do not apply to the underlying claims.

District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said The Netherlands Insurance Co.
and Peerless Insurance Co. have a duty to defend Butler Area
School District and its former superintendent, Dale Lumley,
against claims from parents suing the district for allegedly
hiding the presence of hazardous copper and lead levels in the
water of an elementary school. The judge said that the insurance
policies' general pollution exclusions are ambiguous enough to
allow coverage and that the specific lead poisoning exclusions say
nothing about copper.

"The court will not countenance the insurers' invitation to turn
Pennsylvania law relative to the duty to defend on its head, so as
to allow the potential exclusion of a single type of claim to
relieve them of their duty to defend, when the law actually
requires a defense when a single potentially covered claim is
alleged," Judge Schwab said.

Jennifer Tait had sued the western Pennsylvania school district
and Lumley in February, saying it received test results in August
2016 indicating lead and copper were leeching from the pipes into
the school's water but did not notify parents until the middle of
January. Throughout that time, Tait says, her daughter and others
drank the contaminated water, which increased the possibility of
lead or copper poisoning. She later amended the complaint to add
the former assistant superintendent and maintenance director as
defendants.

The district holds a general liability policy issued by
Netherlands and an umbrella policy from Peerless, and the insurers
are seeking a declaratory judgment that they have no duty to
defend the district because its claims fall under general
exclusions for "pollutants" and specific exclusions for lead
exposure.

In response to cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Schwab
said on June 9 that the policies exclude damages "arising out of
the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage,
migration, release or escape of 'pollutants,'" but that the
Pennsylvania courts have found this language does not accurately
describe the degradation over time that causes lead exposure from
lead-based paint.

"These findings are similar to the facts, as here, where lead and
copper are essentially components of the water system at Summit
Elementary, which have degraded over time, thereby allegedly
rendering the lead and copper bioavailable," he said.

The judge also said that because there is no specific copper
exclusion, the companies are obligated to provide defense coverage
in the underlying case, as there has been no determination yet
whether the alleged injuries were caused solely by the lead,
solely by the copper or by both.

He said questions of indemnification would have to wait on such a
judgment and on an analysis of expert opinions on the pollution
definition.

"The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania emphasizes that an insurer's
duty to defend is broader than its duty to indemnify and that the
duty to defend is a distinct obligation, separate and apart from
the insurer's duty to provide coverage," Judge Schwab said.

Counsel for the insurers and for the school did not immediately
respond to requests for comment late June 9.

The insurers are represented by John C. Sullivan, Esq. --
jsullivan@postschell.com -- and Kathleen K. Kerns, Esq. --
kkerns@postschell.com -- of Post & Schell PC.

The school is represented by Matthew A. Meyers, Esq. --
mameyers@burnswhite.com -- and Robert E. Dapper Jr., Esq. --
redapper@burnswhite.com --  of Burns White LLC.

The case is The Netherlands Insurance Co. et al. v. Butler Area
School District et al., case number 2:17-cv-00341, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. [GN]


CALPERS: Heinz Sues over Out-Of-Network Medical Expense Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a member of the California Public Employees Retirement System has
filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles, accusing the
retirement system and Anthem Blue Cross of unlawfully paying out-
of-network medical expenses below accepted industry standards for
reimbursement rates.

Brad Heinz sued CalPERS and Anthem in Los Angeles County Superior
Court on June 13, claiming Anthem told members of the retirement
system that it would pay 60 percent of out-of-network medical
expenses under preferred provider organization (PPO) health plans.
Instead, CalPERS and the health insurance company manipulate the
allowable amount of benefits under their plans to "greatly reduce"
reimbursements to members, Heinz claims in his lawsuit.

That means members end up bearing more of the cost than they
should, Heinz says.

When Heinz's cognitive therapist went out of network and stopped
contracting with Anthem, the Indianapolis-based insurer paid Heinz
$45.15 to $82.12 for each session when it should have reimbursed
him at a rate of $120 or more, he says.

"CalPERS and Anthem cannot string together a series of
technicalities that purportedly allow CalPERS and Anthem to
provide greatly reduced reimbursements irrespective of other terms
requiring a higher reimbursement consistent with UCR [usual,
customary, and reasonable reimbursement rates] and industry
standards," the 93-page lawsuit states.

The number of employees and retirees who have PPO health care
plans are currently unknown, according to the lawsuit, but CalPERS
currently has 1.6 million active and retired members.

Heinz's class action complaint alleges breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and other counts and seeks
damages or reasonable reimbursement.

Heinz also filed a petition on June 13, asking the state court to
accept his claim as timely even though California's Government
Claims Program said that he had waited too long to file when
CalPERS and Anthem rejected his class action claims in an
administrative decision.

He is represented by Los Angeles attorney John Jensen.

Anthem and CalPERS declined to comment on the allegations in the
lawsuit.


CASCADE BANCORP: Suit by Sternheim Family Trust Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against a class action lawsuit by Sternheim Family
Trust.

On February 16, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the Circuit Court for Deschutes County, Oregon styled
Sternheim Family Trust v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV06744. In the
Sternheim complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and
agreeing to the First Interstate merger. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges that the directors failed to obtain the highest
possible value for the Company, agreed to preclusive deal
protection provisions in the merger agreement, and failed to
disclose all material information in the Registration Statement
filed with the SEC. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company
and First Interstate aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The Sternheim complaint seeks injunctive relief
to prevent the First Interstate merger from going forward,
damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the allegations of the Sternheim
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Sternheim
complaint.


CASCADE BANCORP: "Crosse" Class Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
The case, Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, has been dismissed, Cascade
Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

On February 24, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon styled
Crosse v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 17CV08305. In the Crosse complaint,
the plaintiff alleged that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by filing with the SEC a Registration Statement
that fails to disclose all material information about the First
Interstate merger. The plaintiff further alleged that the Company
and First Interstate aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. The Crosse complaint sought injunctive relief to
prevent the First Interstate merger from going forward, as well as
attorneys' fees. On April 17, 2017, the court entered an order
dismissing the Crosse action without prejudice.


CASCADE BANCORP: "Parshall" Class Suit Pending in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
Cascade Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues
to defend against the case, Parshall v. Cascade Bancorp.

On March 13, 2017, a putative shareholder class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
styled Parshall v. Cascade Bancorp, No. 6:17-cv-00405-JR. In the
Parshall complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Cascade and its
directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by failing to
disclose certain facts about the process that led to the First
Interstate merger and financial analyses performed by Cascade's
financial advisors. The Parshall complaint further alleges that
First Interstate and the Company's Board of Directors violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by acting as control persons.
The Parshall complaint seeks injunctive relief to prevent the
First Interstate merger from going forward, as well as attorneys'
fees.

The Company believes that the allegations of the Parshall
complaint are without merit and that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to the claims set forth in the Parshall
complaint.


CBE GROUP: Faces "Carall" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is entitled as Jennifer Carall, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The CBE
Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03678 (E.D.N.Y., June
19, 2017).

CBE Group provides accounts receivable management and debt
collection services for clients in the education, financial, and
healthcare industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CBE GROUP: Faces "Llive" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The CBE Group, Inc.
The case is captioned as Mario Llive, on behalf of himself
individually and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
The CBE Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03673
(E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2017).

CBE Group provides accounts receivable management and debt
collection services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Amended Consolidated Complaint Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that an amended
consolidated complaint remains pending in the case, In re CEC
Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action,
which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak
Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution
on October 14, 2014. The third purported class action, which is
captioned Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No.
14C81, was filed on January 24, 2014 and additionally names as
defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso
Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon Action"). The fourth purported class
action, which is captioned Louisiana Municipal Public Employees'
Retirement System v. Frank, et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on
January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS Action") (together with the Coyne
and Dixon Actions, the "Shareholder Actions"). A fifth purported
class action, which was captioned McCullough v. Frank, et al.,
Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County Court of Dallas
County, Texas on February 7, 2014.

This action was dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.
Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.

Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties engaged in
limited discovery.

On July 21, 2015, a consolidated class action complaint was
brought by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Shareholder
Actions that did not name as defendants Apollo, Queso Holdings
Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII, L.P., or AP VIII
Queso Holdings, L.P., continued to assert claims against CEC and
its former directors, and added The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant. The consolidated complaint
alleges, among other things, that CEC's former directors breached
their fiduciary duties to CEC's stockholders by conducting a
deficient sales process, agreeing to impermissible deal protection
devices, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the
transaction.

It further alleges that two members of the board who also served
as the senior managers of CEC had material conflicts of interest
and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a
result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The
consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, to recover
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 22, 2015, the parties to the consolidated action moved
to dismiss the complaint.

On March 1, 2017, the special master appointed by the Kansas court
to oversee pre-trial proceedings recommended that the Kansas court
grant defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On March 30,
2017, plaintiff moved for leave to amend the consolidated
complaint. The proposed amended consolidated complaint does not
name as defendants CEC or its former directors, and purports to
substitute Goldman, Sachs & Co. in place of the Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. on the claim for aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty.

Although Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated action, and therefore no reasonable estimate of
possible loss, if any, can be made at this time, Apollo believes
that such action is without merit.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


CENTURYLINK: 3 Class Actions Allege Billing Fraud
-------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that citing thousands of complaints on social media, three class
actions accuse telecommunications company CenturyLink of fraud,
double-dealing and using phony and inflated fees to cheat millions
of consumers of as much as $12 billion.

A nationwide federal class action filed June 18 in Los Angeles
claims CenturyLink promises customers phone, data and cable TV
service at one price but bills them much more and threatens them
with high cancellation fees if they try to quit.

"It is estimated that the damages to consumers could range between
$600 million and $12 billion, based on CenturyLink's 5.9 million
subscribers," according to named plaintiffs Craig McLeod of
Alabama and Steven McCauley of Kansas.

A similar federal class action was filed on June 19, in Portland,
Oregon, and a state class action was filed June 14 in Maricopa
County Court, Phoenix.

Arriving as the Monroe, La.-based CenturyLink is in the middle of
its $34 billion acquisition of multinational competitor Level 3
Communications, more such lawsuits can be expected, said Ben
Meiselas, with Geragos & Geragos, one of McLeod and McCauley's
attorneys.

"There are consumers in every state that have reached out to us,"
Meiselas said. "We'll be filing in all states where consumers are
victims."

The Los Angeles complaint states that "a digital revolt against
CenturyLink's fraud has been fomented by subscribers on social
media and consumer watchdog websites." The 19-page lawsuit claims
thousands of complaints from CenturyLink customers have been
posted on Facebook, Reddit, Twitter and consumer websites.

"This is one of the most outraged and passionate groups of
consumers I've ever been involved with," Meiselas said.

In Phoenix, former customer service employee Heidi Heiser claims
CenturyLink fired her after she complained that the company was
cheating customers of "many millions of dollars" for services they
had not authorized. Heiser's lawsuit says there are "frightening
parallels between the Wells Fargo Bank scandal and what she saw
happening at Century Link."

And on June 19, in Portland, Oregon customer Heather Gonsoir
claimed that CenturyLink, "as part of its billing pattern and
practice . . . systematically and intentionally overcharged tens
of thousands of Oregon customers."

Gonsoir is represented by Michael Fuller with Olsen Daines;
Geragos is co-counsel.

Both federal complaints give credit to Heiser's whistleblower
action in Arizona.

CenturyLink spokesman Mark Molzen, said in an email that
"opportunistic follow-on claims are not unexpected" after a suit
like Heiser's.

"The fact that a law firm is trying to leverage a wrongful
termination suit into a putative class action lawsuit does not
change our original position," Molzen said.

"The allegations made by our former employee are completely
inconsistent with our company policies, culture and Unifying
Principles, which include honesty and integrity," he continued.
"We take these allegations seriously and are diligently
investigating this matter."

The plaintiffs say they didn't see the honesty and integrity.

McLeod, 65, says he was promised upgraded internet speed for $2
more per month. Instead, his monthly bill doubled to $80, and he
was hit with undisclosed "wiring charges" for having a technician
swap out his modem.

When he complained about excessive and unexpected charges on his
bill, "CenturyLink told him it was his 'fault' for not catching
its fraudulent charges," the complaint states.

McCauley, from a small town in Kansas, was paying CenturyLink $48
a month for internet service and was told he could be put on a new
plan at $27.99. He was shocked, he says in the lawsuit, when a
bill for $80 arrived.

When he complained, he was told that the company had no $27.99
plan but he could be put on a contract for $43 a month. When he
asked to drop his service, he was told he would have to pay a $200
termination fee.

"Mr. McCauley remains trapped in an exorbitant contract he never
agreed to enter," his complaint states.

Meanwhile in Oregon, Gonsoir discovered her monthly fee for
bundled services was more than twice what the salespeople at her
door had promised. She was told she would have to pay a previously
undisclosed $240 cancellation fee to quit.

"Plaintiff later discovered she wasn't alone. As it turned out,
several of plaintiff's neighbors were also ripped off by
CenturyLink, Inc.'s unlawful billing tactics," she says.

Gonsoir says she has since learned that CenturyLink's "pattern and
practice of misleading customers about the costs of its services
are well-known within the industry, and among utility regulators."

Gonsoir cites an article in The Oregonian newspaper showing a 54
percent increase in complaints to regulators in 2015 alone.  She
seeks damages and punitive damages, for violations of Oregon's
Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The national plaintiffs seek damages
for fraud, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Meiselas said he believes these and future class actions against
CenturyLink eventually will be consolidated in some manner.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement in "Tomasulo" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the settlement in the
case, Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., remains
subject to court approval.

CenturyLink and the members of the CenturyLink Board have been
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of
the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery
Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-20170110.

The Company said, "The complaint asserts, among other things, that
the members of CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their
fiduciary duties to the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the
Level 3 merger agreement and, more particularly, that: the
consideration that CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3
stockholders in the transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the
CenturyLink directors allegedly had conflicts of interest in
negotiating and approving the transaction; and the disclosures set
forth in our preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in
December 2016 are insufficient in that they allegedly fail to
contain material information concerning the transaction. The
complaint seeks, among other things, a declaration that the
members of the CenturyLink Board have breached their fiduciary
duties, corrective disclosure, rescissory or other damages and
equitable relief, including rescission of the transaction."

"On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. The
proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other
conditions, and the amount of the settlement is not material to
our consolidated financial statements."

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to residential and
business customers.


CHICAGO BEAR: Faces "Beckman" Suit in Northern Dist. of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chicago Bear
Football Club. The case is styled as Russell Beckman, and any
other similarly situated individual, the Plaintiff, v. Chicago
Bear Football Club Inc., a Delaware Corporation and National
Football League, an unincorporated association, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04551 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall.

The Chicago Bears Football Club Inc. is a professional American
football team in Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Accord Reached in Discount Prices Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Children's Place, Inc. and parties to a class action over
falsely advertised discount prices have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter on a class basis, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 29, 2017.
Specifically, the settlement applies to all individuals in the
United States who made a qualifying purchase at The Children's
Place between February 11, 2012 and the date of the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.

The Company is a defendant in Rael v. The Children's Place, Inc.,
a purported class action, pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California.  In the initial complaint filed
in February 2016, the plaintiff alleged that the Company falsely
advertised discount prices in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in April
2016, adding allegations of violations of other state consumer
protection laws.  In August 2016, the plaintiff filed a second
amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and removing the
other state law claims.  The plaintiffs' second amended complaint
seeks to represent a class of California purchasers and seeks,
among other items, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Company engaged in mediation proceedings with the plaintiffs
in December 2016 and April 2017.  In April 2017, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter on a class
basis with all individuals in the United States who made a
qualifying purchase at The Children's Place between February 11,
2012 and the date of preliminary approval by the court of the
settlement.  The proposed settlement provides for merchandise
vouchers for class members who submit valid claims, as well as
payment of legal fees and expenses and claims administration
expenses.  The proposed settlement, if ultimately entered into by
the parties and approved by the court, will result in the
dismissal of all claims through the date of the court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.  However, if the proposed
settlement is rejected by the court, the parties will likely
return to litigation, and in such event, no assurance can be given
as to the ultimate outcome of this matter.  In connection with the
agreement in principle regarding a proposed settlement, the
Company has recorded a reserve for US$5.0 million in its
consolidated financial statements for the First Quarter 2017.

The Children's Place, Inc. operates as a children's specialty
apparel retailer.  The Company operates through two segments, The
Children's Place U.S. and The Children's Place International.  The
Company was formerly known as The Children's Place Retail Stores,
Inc. and changed its name to The Children's Place, Inc. in June
2014.  The Children's Place, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is based
in Secaucus, New Jersey.


CHINA AGRITECH: 9th Circuit Invites Successive Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Landry, writing for The National Law Review, reports that
in Resh v. China Agritech, No. 15-5543, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9029
(9th Cir. May 24, 2017), a Ninth Circuit panel held that a pending
putative class action in which class certification is ultimately
denied tolls the statute of limitations as to claims that
previously absent class members later seek to assert as class
claims. The ruling expands a tolling doctrine the U.S. Supreme
Court has so far only applied to absent class members' individual
claims. See American Pipe & Construction Co v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538
(1974). It also clarifies Ninth Circuit precedent, which, to the
extent it had previously applied American Pipe tolling to absent
class members' class claims, arguably did so only when the earlier
class certification denial rested on the named plaintiff's
inadequacy, not on the invalidity of the alleged class itself.
Resh applies American Pipe to class claims without qualification.
Hence, it opens the door in the Ninth Circuit to new phenomenon:
successive class actions based on the same underlying event.

In Resh, investors filed a putative securities fraud class action
against China Agritech and its managers and directors. The case
arose from a market research report (the "Report") claiming that
China Agritech was not operating as a real business, which tanked
the price for its publicly traded shares. The investors had been
unnamed plaintiffs in two earlier would-be class actions against
many of the same defendants based on the same underlying events.
Both had been filed within the applicable two-year statute of
limitations and voluntarily dismissed after the district court
denied class certification. Grounds for rejecting class action
status included plaintiffs' failure to invoke the necessary fraud-
on-the-market presumption of reliance by showing that China
Agritech's stock traded in an efficient market. By the time the
named plaintiffs in Resh filed their own class action, more than
three years had passed since the Report.

In opposing defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as time-
barred, plaintiffs argued that the two earlier class actions had
tolled 804 of the 1243 days elapsing since the Report's release,
causing only 439 days of the two-year limitations period to run.
The district court disagreed, observing that American Pipe only
suspends the statute of limitations for absent class members'
individual claims and not "for an entirely new class action based
upon a substantially identical class." In rejecting plaintiffs'
tolling argument, it reasoned a contrary ruling "would allow
tolling to extend indefinitely" and lead to repeated class
certification attempts merely "on the basis of different expert
testimony and/or other evidence.'"

The Ninth Circuit panel reversed. It framed the issue by noting
that no time bar prevented plaintiffs from aggregating their
individual claims via joinder. The issue was only whether Rule 23
aggregation was time barred. Although the defendants argued that
Ninth Circuit precedent permitted class-claim tolling, if at all,
only when the earlier class certification denial rested on
deficiencies associated with the named plaintiff (which was not
the case here), the panel called this a misreading. It attributed
any prior Ninth Circuit-imposed limitation on successive class
claims to the application of "preclusion and preclusion-related
principles," not tolling. It identified several recent Supreme
Court decisions (Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v.
Allstate Insurance Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010); Smith v. Bayer Corp.,
564 U.S. 299 (2011); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct.
1036 (2016)) that it found "confirmed" the correctness of this
view. For example, according to the panel, Shady Grove illustrates
that Rule 23 operates independent of other laws, including
statutes of limitation, such that, if tolling principles allow a
plaintiff to timely pursue a claim individually, they allow the
plaintiff to assert it as a class claim.

Extending American Pipe, the panel remarked: "permitting future
class action named plaintiffs . . . to avail themselves of
American Pipe tolling advance[s] the policy objectives that led
the Supreme Court to permit tolling in the first place." According
to the panel, tolling creates no unfair surprise because the prior
class suit will have already alerted the defendant to the
substantive claims being brought against it and "the number and
generic identities of the potential plaintiffs who may participate
in the judgment." In addition, it promotes judicial economy by
eliminating the need for absent class members to file duplicative,
protective class actions before the expiration of their own
limitations period.

Notably, the panel downplayed any concerns that its ruling might
lead to unlimited successive class actions, speculating that "if
it is clear that a proposed class is not viable under Rule 23, as
evidenced by an earlier federal court decision, potential future
plaintiffs (or, more precisely, their attorneys) will have little
to gain from repeatedly filing new suits." It also posited that
"[a]ttorneys who are going to be paid on a contingency fee basis,
or in some cases based on a fee-shifting statute, at some point
will be unwilling to assume the financial risk in bringing
successive suits" (emphasis added). In its view, "preclusion and
comity" will be effective to limit absent class members from
relitigating previously rejected class action arguments and proof.

The Ninth Circuit's new rule conflicts with a majority of circuits
that do not extend American Pipetolling to absent would-be class
member's own later-asserted class claims. It also could be subject
to easy abuse. A class certification showing can rest on various
grounds and forms of proof, presenting the possibility that absent
class members will be able to fashion successive class claims
similar enough to invoke American Pipe tolling yet different
enough (by slight changes to the class definition or submitted
proof) to escape preclusion and comity-type defenses. Indeed, it
would have been helpful for the panel to have exactly explained
how preclusion or comity principles will place effective limits on
successive class action attempts as orders denying class
certification are not on the merits and, ordinarily, have no
binding effect on absent class members. The opinion may also
underestimate the class action plaintiffs' bar's tenacity and
ability to find new plaintiffs willing to serve as class
representatives. One thing is certain, if the plaintiffs' bar does
not share the panel's view of the downside risks, successive class
actions based on the same underlying conduct will become a new
reality in the Ninth Circuit. [GN]


CLARUS COMMERCE: Chandler Seeks Certification of Purchasers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RAYMOND D. CHANDLER, an
individual, LUANN SHAVER, an individual, on their own behalf, and
as class action representatives on behalf of all those similarly
situated, and in the interest of the general public v. CLARUS
COMMERCE, LLC, a Connecticut Corporation, and DOES 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:17-cv-01794-SVW-E (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify a class defined as:

     All persons residing in the United States who made a
     purchase from an on-line (internet) retailer and were
     subsequently enrolled in a free shipping membership program
     maintained by Clarus Commerce, LLC, and/or its predecessor,
     including the FreeShipping.com program, without having taken
     the final step of affirmatively submitting Private Payment
     Information to Clarus, commencing at any time during the
     four years preceding the filing of this action.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 17, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gAdusADv

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James L. Hudgens, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES L. HUDGENS
          15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 220
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-7802
          Facsimile: (805) 962-0722


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Donnelly" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Allison Donnelly, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Client
Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03741 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 21, 2017).

Client Services is a full service accounts receivable management
firm offering a diverse selection of collection and recovery
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Securities Suit Granted Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy F. Atlas of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and appointment of class
representative and class counsel in the case entitled, IN RE
COBALT INTERNATIONAL ENERGY, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil
Action No. H-14-3428 (S.D. Tex.).

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. is an exploration and production
company that was formed in 2005 as a private company. In 2007,
Cobalt entered into an agreement with Sonangol E.P., an Angolan
national oil company, to acquire a 40% interest in oil exploration
Blocks 9, 20, and 21 in offshore Angola. In 2009, the Angolan
Parliament issued two decrees assigning an interest in the Blocks
to Nazaki Oil & Gaz, Sonangol P&P, and Alper Oil, Limitada. Cobalt
conducted an initial public offering (IPO) of its shares in
December 2009 and on February 2010, Cobalt, Nazaki, and Alpher
signed Risk Services Agreements with Sonangol.

On April 15, 2012, the Financial Times published two reports that
Nazaki was owned by Angolan officials, who had admitted their
ownership interest to the Financial Times. On December 1, 2013,
Cobalt issued a press release disclosing that the Lontra well
contained primarily gas to which Cobalt had no rights. On August
5, 2014, Bloomberg reported that the SEC had issued a wells notice
recommending the institution of an enforcement action, and that
social payments that Cobalt was required to make to the Angolan
government to fund a research center were for a center that did
not exist. On November 4, 2014, Cobalt issued a press release
disclosing that the Loengo well was a dry hole with no oil. The
price of Cobalt shares declined after each of the reports.

Plaintiffs filed a securities class action suit and on March 15,
2017, plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. Plaintiffs
assert a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5; Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act; Section
20A of the Exchange Act; Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933;
Section 15 of the Securities Act; and Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class
certification, appointment of class representatives, and
appointment of class counsel.

Judge Atlas granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel. It is
further ordered that, defendants not having objected to the
specific phrasing of the class definition requested by plaintiffs,
the court certifies a class as plaintiffs request:

All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Cobalt securities between March 1, 2011 and November 3, 2014,
inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Included within the class are
all persons and entities who purchased shares of Cobalt common
stock on the open market and/or pursuant or traceable to the
registered public offerings on or about (i) February 23, 2012;
(ii) January 16, 2013; and (iii) May 8, 2013. Also included within
the class are all persons and entities who purchased Cobalt
convertible senior notes on the open market and/or pursuant or
traceable to registered public offerings on or about (i) December
12, 2012; and (ii) May 8, 2014. Excluded from the class are
defendants, the officers and directors of the defendants during
the class period the excluded officers and directors; members of
the immediate families of the individual defendants and of the
excluded officers and directors; any entity in which any
defendant, any excluded officer or director, or any of their
respective immediate family members has, and/or had during the
class period, a controlling interest; defendants' liability
insurance carriers; any affiliates, parents, or subsidiaries of
the corporate defendants; all corporate defendants' plans that are
covered by ERISA; and the legal representatives, heirs, agents,
affiliates, successors-in-interest or assigns of any excluded
person or entity, in their respective capacity as such.

It is further ordered that plaintiffs GAMCO Global Gold, Natural
Resources & Income Trust; GAMCO Natural Resources, Gold & Income
Trust; St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund; Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio;
Sjunde AP-Fonden; and Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H. are
appointed as Class Representatives. It is further ordered that
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP are appointed as class counsel and that counsel shall appear
before the Court on July 12, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. for a status and
scheduling conference. On or before July 7, 2017, counsel shall
file a proposed Docket Control Order to govern the remaining
deadlines of the case.

A copy of Judge Atlas's memorandum and order dated June 15, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/g8bKAJ from Leagle.com.

St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com
-- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerald T. Drought -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- at
Martin & Drought PC

Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.h., Plaintiff, represented
by David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Christopher Francis Moriarty --
cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; Matthew
Christopher Matheny -- at Provost Umphrey

Sjunde AP-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Johnston de Forest
Whitman, Jr. -- jwhitman@ktmc.com -- Naumon A. Amjed --
namjed@ktmc.com -- Stuart L. Berman -- sberman@ktmc.com -- at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; David R. Stickney --
davids@blbglaw.com -- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

GAMCO Natural Resources, Gold & Income Trust and GAMCO Global
Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by
Brandon Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- David R. Stickney --
davids@blbglaw.com -- Jonathan D. Uslaner -- jonathanu@blbglaw.com
-- at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Thomas Robert
Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- at Ajamie LLP; Jonathan H. Beemer
-- jbeemer@entwistle-law.com -- Jordan A. Cortez -- Vincent R.
Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- Andrew J. Entwistle --
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- at Entwistle & Cappucci LLP

Joseph H Bryant, Defendant, represented by Karl S. Stern --
karlstern@quinnemanuel.com -- David Gerger --
davidgerger@quinnemanuel.com -- Emily McLemore Smith --
emilysmith@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan

Cobalt International Energy Inc., Kathryn Bailey Hutchison, Martin
H Young, Jr., D Jeff Van Steenbergen, Myles W Scoggins, Scott L
Lebovitz, Kenneth A Pontarelli, Michael G France, J Hardy
Murchison, Kenneth W Moore, Jon A Marshall, N John Lancaster, Jack
E Golden, Henry Cornell, Peter R Coneway, John P Wilkirson and
James W Farnsworth, Defendants, represented by Daniel David --
danny.david@bakerbotts.com -- David D. Sterling --
david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Amy Pharr Hefley --
amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com -- Paul R. Elliott --
paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com -- Russell Carter Lewis --
russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts LLP

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carrie Marie
Reilly -- CMReilly@wlrk.com -- George T. Conway, III --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- Corey Jared Banks -- CJBanks@wlrk.com -- at
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ronald L. Oran, Jr. --
ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price LLP; Scott
Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher, & Flom, LLP

Riverstone Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie Marie
Reilly -- CMReilly@wlrk.com -- George T. Conway, III --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- Corey Jared Banks -- CJBanks@wlrk.com -- at
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ronald L. Oran, Jr. --
ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price LLP

The Carlyle Group, Defendant, represented by Janine Marie Pierson
-- jpierson@wc.com -- Robert A. Van Kirk -- rvankirk@wc.com --
Shifali Baliga -- sbaliga@wc.com -- George Anthony Borden --
gborden@wc.com -- John Sievert Williams -- jwilliams@wc.com -- at
Williams & Connolly LLP; Ronald L. Oran, Jr. --
ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price LLP

C/R Energy III Cobalt Partnership, L.P., Carlyle/Riverstone Global
Energy and Power Fund III, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI GmbH & Co.
KG,GS Capital Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI
Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Fund, L.P., GS Capital
Partners V GmbH & Co. KG, GS Capital Partners V Institutional,
L.P., GS Capital Partners V Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital
Partners V Fund, L.P., KERN Partners Ltd., and First Reserve
Corporation, Defendants, represented by George T. Conway, III --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ronald L.
Oran, Jr. -- ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price
LLP

Riverstone Energy Coinvestment III, L.P., Defendant, represented
by Ronald L. Oran, Jr. -- ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at
Strasburger & Price LLP

KERN Cobalt Co-Invest Partners AP LP Carlyle Energy Coinvestment
III, L.P., Defendant, represented by Robert A. Van Kirk --
rvankirk@wc.com -- Shifali Baliga -- sbaliga@wc.com -- George
Anthony Borden -- gborden@wc.com -- John Sievert Williams --
jwilliams@wc.com -- at Williams & Connolly LLP

First Reserve Fund XI, L.P., FR XI Onshore AIV, L.P., C/R Energy
Coinvestment II, L.P., and C/R Cobalt Investment Partnership,
L.P., Defendant, represented by George T. Conway, III --
GTConway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; Ronald L.
Oran, Jr. -- ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price
LLP; Russell Carter Lewis -- russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com -- at
Baker Botts LLP

Goldman Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by Ronald L. Oran, Jr.
-- ron.oran@strasburger.com -- at Strasburger & Price LLP; Jay B.
Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Noelle M. Reed --
noelle.reed@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner
-- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP


CONDOR SECURITIZATION: Deviese's Bid to Certify Class Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon E. Deguilio grants the parties' joint motion to
withdraw the motion for class certification in the lawsuit
captioned JAMES C. DEVIESE, et al. v. CONDOR SECURITIZATION TRUST,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00168-JD-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

Consistent with the discussion at a recent status conference, the
parties have filed a joint motion to withdraw the motion for class
certification, Judge Deguilio wrote in the order.

Accordingly, Judge Deguilio ruled, the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification is withdrawn, without prejudice to refiling.
The Defendants will not take any action to moot the putative class
without providing the Plaintiffs 30 days advance notice of the
Defendants' intention to take such action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SlzO8zT7


CPN MECHANICAL: Wants to Dismiss DiFerro Contracting Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the putative class action
lawsuit captioned DIFERRO CONTRACTING CORP. v. CPN MECHANICAL,
INC., CONSTANTINE NIKOLIS AND YVONNE NIKOLIS, Case No. 603101/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Nassau Cty., April 10, 2017).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover trust assets with interest accrued, to enjoin the
Defendants from making any diversion of said trust funds not
authorized pursuant to the provisions of Article 3-A of the Lien
Law of the State of New York, damages for breach of trust
obligation, interest accrued thereon, any provisional or ancillary
relief, reasonable costs and expenses incident to the prosecution
of this action, including a reasonable fee for DiFerro's attorneys
and such other and further relief for breach of contract and New
York's Lien Law.

CPN was a trade subcontractor for HVAC and water systems for the
project of Hudson Meridian Construction Group, LLC located at
Block 00199, Lots 2 along 60, 90 and 130 Furman Street, Brooklyn,
NY, where DiFerro furnished all mechanical piping and mechanical
piping insulation. CPN still lacks the the sum of $926,552.29
excluding its claim for delay damages together with interest from
October 19, 2016, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paula J. Warmuth, Esq.
          STIM & WARMUTH, P.C.
          2 Eighth Street
          Farmingville, NY 11738
          Telephone: (631) 732-2000
          Facsimile: (631) 732-2662
          E-mail: pjw@stim-warmuth.com

Defendants CPN MECHANICAL, INC., CONSTANTINE NIKOLIS AND YVONNE
NIKOLIS are represented by:

          FARRELL FRITZ, P.C.
          400 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516) 227-0700


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Libby" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc.  The case is titled as Kelly M. Libby, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit Collection Services,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03747 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2017).

Credit Control, doing business as credit collection services,
provides business process outsourcing solutions for customers in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DASHEL INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christina Gonzalez, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Dashel, Inc.,
doing business as: Chef David Schwadron Catering, a Florida profit
corporation; David Schwadron, individually; Shelley Schwadron,
individually; and Aaron Dreilinger, individually, Case No. 17-
11894-CA-01, was removed on June 21, 2017 from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court In Miami, FL, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-22312-DPG to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

Dashel, Inc. is a mid-sized catering & bartending service in
Palmetto Bay, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          Tyler Aaron Stull, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com
                  ts@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marlene Quintana, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, P.A.
          333 SE 2 Avenue, Suite 3200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416 6880
          Facsimile: (305) 416 6887
          E-mail: marlene.quintana@gray-robinson.com


DATA SOFTWARE: " Ronquillo-Griffin" Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Kelissa Ronquillo-Griffin, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Data Software
Services, LLC (d/b/a Eleadlone) and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case No.
37-2017-00008178, (Cal. Super., March 7, 2017), was removed to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California under Case No. 3:17-cv-01151.

Plaintiff alleges violations by Data Software Services of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica N. Walker, Esq.
      NIXON PEABODY LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
      Tel: (213) 629-6000
      Fax: (213) 629-6001
      Email: jwalker@nixonpeabody.com

             - and -

      Jason C. Kravitz, Esq.
      Troy K. Lieberman, Esq.
      NIXON PEABODY LLP
      100 Summer Street
      Boston, MA 02110-2131
      Tel: (617) 345-1000
      Fax: (617) 345-1300
      Email: tlieberman@nixonpeabody.com


DAVIS VISION: Eye Care Providers Sue in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
Lowell Neumann Nickey, writing for Courthouse News Service,
reported that a class of independent eye care providers claims in
a federal lawsuit in Philadelphia that one of Pennsylvania's
largest vision insurers forces them to steer their patients to buy
lenses from a factory owned by the insurer, often at a higher
cost.

In a complaint filed on June 12, in Philadelphia federal court,
lead plaintiff Alan Frank accuses Davis Vision, HVHC and parent
company Highmark Health of forcing independent providers, but not
major retailers like Walmart, to order lenses and frames from a
lab owned by Davis Vision.

Davis Vision provides vision insurance to at least 65 percent of
insured Pennsylvania eye care patients, according to the
complaint.

Frank -- who seeks to represent a class of independent
ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians -- claims this market
dominance prevents independent eye care providers from serving
their patients' best interests.

Instead of opting for relatively inexpensive and convenient in-
house, same-day services, independent providers are allegedly
coerced by Davis Vision's "mandatory laboratory policy" to order
frames and lenses from Davis' own laboratory.

The lawsuit asserts Davis' claim that the mandatory laboratory
policy saves patients money is an excuse to cover up its
"anticompetitive purpose and intent."

"Davis Vision's proclamation of so-called 'savings' is false and
illusory," the complaint states. "A direct consequence of Davis
Vision's mandatory laboratory policy is that independent
Pennsylvania eyecare providers cannot fabricate frames or lenses
through a competing laboratory -- even if doing so would be less
expensive, more convenient, or otherwise more beneficial for
patients."

The complaint alleges convenience and quality-related problems
arise from having to mail frames and lenses to a Davis Vision lab,
including delays in order fulfillment.

Davis has been sued before over its lab policy. It settled a
similar case last year brought by Acuity Optical Laboratories
after a judge denied in part its motion for summary judgment.

As a part of that case, Davis admitted that "each time Davis
Vision is obliged to cover costs incurred when one of its members
is prescribed a pair of eyeglasses by an optometrist . . . the
optometrist is required to source the lenses . . . from a
laboratory owned by Davis Vision," according to June 12 complaint.

The complaint goes on to allege that the lab policy is part of a
"broader anticompetitive scheme in Pennsylvania" that includes
allowing major retailer and fellow Highmark subsidiary Visionworks
to provide in-house services while restricting independent
providers.

"Defendants force independent Pennsylvania eyecare providers and
their patients to endure the inconvenience and costs associated
with mailing frames and lenses to Davis Vision-owned laboratories,
but spares its corporate affiliate, Visionworks, from having to do
this," the lawsuit states.

Davis Vision also does not require big-box retailers like Walmart
and Costco to agree to its mandatory laboratory policy,
"presumably because they may possess countervailing market or
negotiating power," according to the complaint.

The proposed class further claims Davis Vision uses administration
delays and reimbursement policies to the disadvantage of
independent eye care providers.

Frank asserts 11 counts including unjust enrichment, unlawful
monopolization and unlawful restraint of trade. He is represented
by Richard M. Golomb of Golomb & Honik in Philadelphia, which
declined to comment on the case.

Representatives from Davis Vision and Highmark did not return
calls for comment by press time on June 13.

The case is captioned, ALAN FRANK, O.D., on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DAVIS VISION, INC.,
and HVHC, INC., and HIGHMARK HEALTH, Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-
02629-HB (E.D. Penn. June 12, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class:

     Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
     Ruben Honik, Esq.
     Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
     David J. Stanoch, Esq.
     GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
     1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Phone: (215) 985-9177
     Fax: (215) 985-4169
     Email: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
            rhonik@golombhonik.com
            kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
            dstanoch@golombhonik.com

          - and -

     W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
     Rebecca D. Gilliland, Esq.
     BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
     272 Commerce Street
     P.O. Box 4160
     Montgomery, AL 36103
     Phone: (334) 269-2343
     Fax: (224) 954-7555
     E-mail: Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com
             Rebecca.Gilliland@BeasleyAllen.com


DETROIT: Iraqi Nationals Sue over Deportation
---------------------------------------------
Emily Zantow, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class of Iraqi nationals represented by the American Civil
Liberties Union sued on June 15, to challenge the deportations of
more than 100 immigrants arrested in Detroit, asking that they be
allowed to remain in the United States to seek stays of removal.

"Law abiding individuals who have been fully compliant with their
conditions of supervision suddenly found themselves arrested and
transferred several hours away to a detention center in
Youngstown, Ohio," according to the lawsuit. "During the course of
just a few days, more than 100 Iraqi nationals were arrested and
detained, for the purpose of effectuating their removal back to
Iraq."

Represented by the ACLU, seven family members of different
detainees filed the class-action habeas corpus lawsuit on June 15
in Detroit federal court. The lone defendant is Rebecca Adducci,
director of the Detroit District of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, or ICE.

Although most of last weekend's detainees were ordered removed to
Iraq years ago, the government had allowed them to stay under
orders of supervision, according to the complaint.

"U.S. law prohibits the removal of individuals to countries where
they would face a likelihood of persecution or torture. Yet
despite the clear danger that many of these individuals face in
Iraq, ICE is attempting to deport them based on outstanding
removal orders that do not take account of intervening changed
circumstances which should entitle them to protection," according
to the lawsuit. "For example, many of the petitioners are Chaldean
Christians, who are widely recognized as targets of brutal
persecution in Iraq."

ICE strongly defended the arrests in a statement released June 13.

"The operation in this region was specifically conducted to
address the very real public safety threat represented by the
criminal aliens arrested," Adducci said in a statement. "The vast
majority of those arrested in the Detroit metropolitan area have
very serious felony convictions, multiple felony convictions in
many cases. I applaud the efforts of the law enforcement personnel
who, day in and day out, put their lives on the line to protect
this community."

ICE says it has arrested 199 Iraqi nationals nationwide since May
of this year and that the majority "had convictions for crimes
including homicide, rape, aggravated assault, kidnapping,
burglary, drug trafficking, robbery, sex assault, weapons
violations and other offenses," according to a statement.

Under a March 12 agreement with the government of Iraq, eight
Iraqi nationals have been deported back to the country.

The family members in June 15 lawsuit want a judge to grant a
temporary stay of the detainees until they are given ample time to
reopen their removal orders and seek stays of removal.

"Petitioners, Christian and Muslim alike, cannot be removed to
Iraq without being afforded a process to determine whether, based
on current conditions and circumstances, the danger they would
face entitles them to protection from removal," the complaint
states.

ICE declined to comment on the complaint in an email on June 16.

"ICE focuses its enforcement resources on individuals who pose a
threat to national security, public safety and border security.
ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from
potential enforcement. All of those in violation of the
immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention
and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United
States," the agency said. "These arrests are consistent with the
routine, targeted enforcement action carried out by ICE's
enforcement and removal operations on a daily basis. All
enforcement activities are conducted with the same level of
professionalism and respect that ICE officers exhibit every day."

The case is captioned, USAMA JAMIL HAMAMA, ATHEER FAWOZI ALI, ALI
AL-DILAMI, HABIL NISSAN, JIHAN ASKER, MOAYAD JALAL BARASH, SAMI
ISMAEL  AL-ISSAWI, on  behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated, Petitioners, v. REBECCA  ADDUCCI, Director of
the Detroit District of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Respondent. 2:17-cv-11910-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich., June 15, 2017).


DRF HOSPITALITY: Segarra Seeks to Recover Overtime, Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS "MILTON" SEGARRA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. DRF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a BARTO RESTAURANT,
and DONALD R. FINLEY, Case No. 2:17-cv-03276 (E.D.N.Y., May 31,
2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Mr. Segarra alleges that he is entitled to recover from the
Defendants (i) pursuant to the FLSA: unpaid overtime, unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs,
and (ii) pursuant to the NYLL: unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid spread of hours premium, statutory penalties,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

DRF Hospitality Management LLC, doing business as Barto
Restaurant, is a corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New York, with a principal place of business locatedin Rosyn,
New York.  Donald R. Finley is the Chairman or Chief Executive
Officer of DRF.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC
          40-08 Case Street, 22nd Floor
          Elmhurst, NY 11373
          Telephone: (646) 342-2019
          Facsimile: (646) 661-1317
          E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com


EAGLE MATERIALS: Class Cert. Process Underway in Wallboard Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 2017 that hearings on class certifications in a
consolidated domestic wallboard antitrust action is ongoing.
Specifically, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the direct
purchaser plaintiff's motion for class certification in April 2017
and has scheduled a hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiff's
motion for class certification in June 2017.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States
in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related
provisions of state law.

The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers
conspired to increase prices through the announcement and
implementation of coordinated price increases, output
restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the
elimination of individual "job quote" pricing.

In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America
("Lafarge"), Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building
Products LLC.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints.  The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant.  The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief.

On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the
complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to
increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses
to the plaintiffs' claims.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  Under the
terms of its settlement agreement, USG agreed to pay US$48.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions.  In its settlement agreement, TIN agreed to pay US$7.0
million to resolve the direct and indirect purchaser class
actions.

On August 20, 2015, the court entered orders finally approving USG
and TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.

Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.  Following
completion of the initial discovery, the Company and remaining co-
defendants moved for summary judgment.

On February 18, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment, but granted Certainteed's motion for summary
judgment.

On June 16, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
for the direct purchaser class under which it agreed to settle all
claims against it for US$23.0 million.  The court entered an order
finally approving this settlement on December 7, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, Lafarge entered into an agreement with counsel
representing the indirect purchaser class under which it agreed to
settle all claims against it for US$5.2 million.

On July 14, 2016, the Company's motion for permission to appeal
the summary judgment decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit was denied.

Direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed their motions for class certification on August 3, 2016 and
October 12, 2016, respectively.  Class certification proceedings
are ongoing.  The Court held an evidentiary hearing on the direct
purchaser plaintiff's motion for class certification in April 2017
and has scheduled a hearing on indirect purchase plaintiff's
motion for class certification in June 2017.

The Company said, "We are unable to estimate the amount of any
reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses.
We deny the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously
defend ourselves against these claims."

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.  Following the transfer, the homebuilder
plaintiffs filed two amended complaints, on December 14, 2015 and
March 25, 2016.  Discovery in this lawsuit is ongoing.

Eagle Materials Inc. makes, distributes, and sells gypsum
wallboard, Portland cement, recycled paperboard, and concrete and
aggregates. The Company was formerly named Centex Construction
Products Inc.  It was founded in 1963 and is based in Dallas.


EGS FINANCIAL: Faces Senior-Delao Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EGS Financial Care,
Inc.  The case is captioned as Heather L. Senior and Venus Delao,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. EGS Financial Care, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-03680 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2017).

EGS Financial provides business process outsourcing solutions. The
Company offers accounts receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Still Defends Suit by Former NFL Running Back
--------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. continues to face a lawsuit filed by a former
NFL running back, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2017.  The District Court for the Northern
District of California previously denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in February 2017.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission.  In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds.

In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On February 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Electronic Arts Inc. develops, markets, publishes, and distributes
games, content, and services for game consoles, personal
computers, mobile phones, and tablets worldwide.  The Company
markets and sells its games and services through digital
distribution channels, as well as through retail channels, such as
mass market retailers, electronics specialty stores, and game
software specialty stores.  Electronic Arts Inc. was founded in
1982 and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


EPLUS INC: Received US$380,000 Payment from DRAM Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
ePlus inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on May 25, 2017 with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it received
US$380,000 during the year ended March 31, 2017 related to the
dynamic random access memory (DRAM) class action lawsuit, which
claimed that manufacturers fixed the price for DRAM. The amount
was included within other income on the Company's consolidated
statement of operations.

The Company filed a claim in a class action suit in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The suit alleged that ten groups of companies conspired to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize prices of certain flat panels used in
many flat screen televisions, monitors and notebook computers.  On
August 6, 2014, the Claims Administrator issued to the Company a
Notice of Claim Final Determination.  On October 20, 2014, the
court issued an order directing that approved claims be paid, and
on October 31, 2014, the Company received a payment of US$6.2
million, which is presented within other income in its
consolidated statement of operations.

ePlus inc., an engineering-centric technology solutions provider,
provides information technology (IT) products and services,
flexible leasing and financing solutions, and enterprise supply
management in the United States.  It operates through two
segments, Technology and Financing.  The Company serves commercial
entities, state and local governments, government contractors, and
educational institutions.  The Company was formerly known as MLC
Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to ePlus inc. in 1999.  ePlus
inc. was founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Herndon,
Virginia.


EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled New Beginnings Healthcare for
Women, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Evo Payments International, LLC and Evo Merchant
Services, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00950, was transferred on June 16,
2017, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-03650-JFB-SIL to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to the Hon. Judge Joseph F. Bianco.

EVO Payments provides electronic payments processing and acquiring
services for merchants and independent sales organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  matt@webbllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison Lynn Hill, Esq.
          David Lewis Balser, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          Julia Constance Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572 2440
          E-mail: ahill@kslaw.com
                  dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jchally@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com


EXPRESS COURIER: "Suggs" Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ark.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Janice Suggs, Chris Averette, Joshua Burrus,
Traci Calbert, Kenneth Champion, Nicholas Cornwell, Jacoby Curry,
Alan Hodge, Philip Hulett, Nathaniel Jackson, Tyrone Johnson,
Adriel Johnson, Michael Johnson, James Jones, Jason Loftis, Daryl
Owens, Brenda Page-Dover, Jamil Pride, Donald Reliford, Darwin
Roberson, Deangelo Smith, Tony Smith, Jerryl Todd, Joseph Walker,
Ryan Wertz, Sheryl White, Calvin Williams, Bart Wishoun And Shaun
Younger, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Express Courier International, Inc. and EMP LSO
Holding Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00275 (W.D. Tex.,
March 30, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of
Arkansas on June 8, 2017, under Case No. 5:17-cv-05100.

Plaintiffs seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees for failing to pay
minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant's primary business purpose is to provide
courier/delivery services where Plaintiffs worked as drivers. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

Defendant is represented by:

      Emily A. Quillen, Esq.
      SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON FEARY PC
      801 Cherry Street, Suite 1075
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 869-1700
      Fax: (817) 878-9472
      Email: equillen@scopelitis.com


FIVE STAR: Faces "McCalla" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Star
Hospitality, Inc.  The case is captioned as MONIQUE MCCALLA,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FIVE STAR HOSPITALITY, INC. D/B/A EXPLORE HOTEL AND
HOSTEL, MOSHE D. PERLSTEIN, and WAASNEY WAZ JEAN-FRANCOIS, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04407 (D.N.J., June 16, 2017).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FMS INVESTMENT: Hopson Alleges Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
OSHA M. HOPSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. FMS INVESTMENT CORP. d/b/a FMS SERVICES, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03880-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May 31, 2017), is brought
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

FMS Investment Corp., doing business as FMS Services, provides
revenue enhancement services to government and private sector
clients within the financial services industry. The company
develops and executes a range of accounts receivable management
solutions.  The Company also provides revenue recovery and payment
integrity services to government agencies with compliance-driven
portfolio needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


GC SERVICES: Faces "Hertzovitz" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership.  The case is styled as Howard Hertzovitz and Sean
Conety, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03697 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GC SERVICES: Faces "Roaldsen" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership.  The case is captioned as Kristina Roaldsen and Ilse
Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03688 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


GENERAL MOTORS: Confident of India Dealer Settlement
----------------------------------------------------
Times of India reports that General Motors Co. is confident of
reaching a settlement with dealers in India before halting sales
in the country even though half say the compensation on offer is
too low, people familiar with the matter said after the first
round of talks.

The US automaker said it would stop selling passenger cars by the
end of the year after two decades in a market where it commands
less than one percent.

It is now tasked with minimising fallout as it restructures its
money-losing India operations, which will continue making cars for
export. At the same time, the firm has had to fend off an attack
from a hedge fund demanding change at the top after a 16 percent
stock price fall during the current CEO's tenure.

GM concluded a first round of talks on June 7 with its 96 India
dealers, who operate 120 dealerships, and the company is confident
its settlement terms will be accepted by a large majority, a
person at GM India said on condition of anonymity.

GM told Reuters discussions with dealers were confidential.
"We are meeting with dealers individually and working through a
plan that addresses their concerns," a spokesperson said. "GM
India is working directly with our dealers to transition to
authorized service outlets and to recognise some of the
investments made in dealerships."

But GM's Dealers Association Board (DAB) comprising 15 high-sales
dealers said the compensation on offer was "negligible and not
sufficient", in a June 6 email to Chief Executive Officer Mary
Barra, shown to Reuters by one DAB member.

Two other DAB members told Reuters that about 50 dealers were
dissatisfied with the terms and have contributed to a fund created
by DAB for use in the event of any legal action.
The president of India's Federation of Automobile Dealers
Associations, John K Paul, said "several" dealers were planning
legal action in India and exploring the possibility of a class
action suit in the United States. He said they aimed to finalise
plans this month ahead of a second round of talks.

One of the three DAB members said GM offered compensation based on
dealers' average monthly sales over the past two years, showroom
size and expenses for sundry items such as signage. The member
favoured compensation based on a dealer's two best years as the
past two years suffered from a scarcity of new models.

The three DAB members plus three more dealers told Reuters the
offer was too low. One of the DAB members said compensation
amounted to about 10 to 12 percent of their original investment,
and that it should be "higher by a few multiples".

All six dealers declined to be identified as the matter was
confidential.

Two of the DAB members said they were surprised when GM announced
the end of sales on May 18. One showed Reuters a GM email dated
April 28 announcing a new hatchback for July.

"The excitement is about to roll, and you will see action-packed
days ahead," GM said in the email. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set on July 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of
a class action lawsuit against General Motors Company ("GM" or the
"Company") (NYSE: GM) for possible violations of federal
securities laws between February 27, 2012 and May 25, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the firm prior to the July 26, 2017 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

You can also call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-
713-1033

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The Complaint states that throughout the Class Period, GM made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that
GM installed three distinct defeat devices in over 700,000 trucks
with Duramax diesel engines from 2011 to 2016, in order to beat
emissions tests in the U.S.; that these Duramax diesel trucks emit
two-to-five times the legal limit of nitrogen oxide pollutants;
and thus, GM's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. Upon release of this news, GM's
stock price dropped materially, which harmed investors according
to the Complaint.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights. [GN]


GENUINE TITLE: Attorneys in "Fangman" Gets $607K in Fees, Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Michigan granted the settlement counsels' petition
for attorneys' fees and expenses in the case styled EDWARD J. AND
VICKI FANGMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENUINE TITLE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. RDB-14-0081 (D. Md.).

In January of 2014, plaintiffs Edward J. and Vicki Fangman brought
a class action against defendant Genuine Title, LLC alleging,
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA),
12 U.S.C. Sections 2607(a), (b)5. Net Equity Financial, Inc. was
named as a defendant in the first amended complaint. An additional
thirteen home mortgage lenders have also been named as defendants
via the first and second amended complaint.

Attorneys Michael Paul Smith, Sarah Zadrozny, Timothy J. Maloney,
and Veronica Nannis of the law firms of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt,
LLC (SGS) and Joseph, Greenwald & Laake, P.A. (JGL) have
represented all plaintiffs, including the Net Equity plaintiffs,
throughout this litigation.

The parties filed a joint motion to preliminarily approval of
Settlement on November 22, 2016. The court held a preliminary
fairness hearing on January 12, 2017 and granted the parties'
joint motion that same day. The court granted final approval of
the settlement agreement, dismissed all claims against Net Equity,
and approved the requested service award for class representative
Helen L. Householder in the amount of $5,000, including her
settlement benefit. The court's order designated Michael Paul
Smith, Sarah Zadrozny, Timothy J. Maloney, and Veronica Nannis of
the law firms of Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC and Joseph,
Greenwald & Laake, P.A. as settlement counsel.

Before the court is settlement counsels' petition for attorneys'
fees and expenses, in which settlement counsel request an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of 20% of the amount of
the settlement benefit to the settlement class, specifically,
$607,163.33.

Judge Bennett held that settlement counsel have secured a
significant financial recovery for the members of the Net Equity
Class. The members of the settlement class will directly receive
over 100% of the average settlement charges paid to Genuine Title
on their loans. Additionally, as the court observed in Singleton,
the fact that no objections have been filed further suggests that
the result achieved is a desirable one.

Judge Bennett granted settlement counsels' petition for attorneys'
fees and expenses in full, in the amount of $607,163.33, an award
equal to 20% of the settlement benefit to the settlement class, or
alternatively, 1/6 of the entire common fund. Pursuant to Sections
7.1 & 13 of the settlement agreement, payment of the award shall
come from the common fund, with the exception of the final
$42,980.00 which shall be paid by Net Equity pursuant to a
confessed judgment promissory note payable to class counsel for
said amount, payable in twelve (12) equal monthly payments with no
interest accruing.

A copy of Judge Bennett's memorandum order dated June 15, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/s3b9Sj from Leagle.com.

In re Smith, Gildea & Schmidt LLC, represented by Sarah A.
Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- at Smith, Gildea & Schmidt,
LLC

In re Sarah A. Zadrozny, Pro Se

In re Michael Paul Smith, represented by Sarah A. Zadrozny --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- at Smith, Gildea & Schmidt, LLC

Patricia M. Marshall, Lusetha Rolle, Carmelita B. Hackett, Carol
J. Shaw, Shelly Palombaro, David Alvarado, Frank A. Palombaro,
Jr., Margaret Eisenstein, Tinna Mahoney, Patricia Gibson, Bruce
Eisenstein, Gerald Jones, Ann Jones, John Mahoney, Preston
Johnson, Beatrice Johnson, Nathaniel Risch, Helen L. Householder,
Charles Milburn, Frank Cherry, Sammie Cherry, Concetta Crupi,
Lawrence Crupi, Dana Pipp, Rose A. Lease, James Pipp, Steven A.
Messina, Geraldine R. Walters, Katherine Cooper, Jameson Cooper,
Deloris F. Woods, Melinda Alvarado, Gerald F. Coggins, Jamie B.
Reinheimer, John H. Reinheimer, Ruby B. Coggins, Joseph J. Quinn,
Eric L. Haynes, Janice M. Manuel, Clayton J. Anthony, Betty M.
Howard, Damon M. Oliver, Vickie Fangman, and Edward J. Fangman,
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-
law.com -- Melissa Lynn English -- menglish@sgs-law.com -- Sarah
A. Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- at Smith Gildea and
Schmidt LLC; Timothy Francis Maloney -- tmaloney@jgllaw.com --
Timothy L. Creed -- tcreed@jgllaw.com -- Veronica Byam Nannis --
vnannis@jgllaw.com -- at Joseph, Greenwald & Laake
Robert Voelker, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Michael Paul
Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-law.com -- Sarah A. Zadrozny --
szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- at Smith Gildea and Schmidt LLC

Bertha Cole, Alvin Cole, and Shelia K. Voelker, Intervenor
Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Paul Smith -- mpsmith@sgs-
law.com -- Sarah A. Zadrozny -- szadrozny@sgs-law.com -- at Smith
Gildea and Schmidt LLC

Dog Days Marketing, LLC, Competitive Advantage Media Group, LLC,
and Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Defendants, represented by Ari Karen
-- akaren@offitkurman.com -- Gregory P. Currey --
gcurrey@offitkurman.com -- at Offit Kurman.

West Town Bank & Trust, Defendant, represented by Brian L. Moffet
-- bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com -- Dwight W. Stone, II --
dstone@milesstockbridge.com -- Zachary Schultz --
zschultz@milesstockbridge.com -- at Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.

Emery Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by David M.
Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Jeffrey Paul Blackwood --
blackwood@thewbkfirm.com -- Michael Yaakov Kieval --
kieval@thewbkfirm.com -- at Weiner Brodsky Kider PC.

PNC Mortgage, Defendant, represented by Daniel Joseph Tobin --
tobindj@ballardspahr.com -- at Ballard Spahr LLP; Robert A. Scott
-- at Office of the Attorney General.

PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel Joseph Tobin --
tobindj@ballardspahr.com -- at Ballard Spahr LLP

Metlife Bank N.A. and Metlife Home Loans, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Leslie Paul Machado --
leslie.machado@leclairryan.com -- at LeClair Ryan PC.

Eagle National Bank, Defendant, represented by Dennis Edward Boyle
-- dennis.boyle@boylefrost.com -- at Boyle & Frost; George J.
Krueger -- gkrueger@foxrothschild.com -- Ryan T. Becker --
rbecker@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild LLP; Lawrence
Joseph Quinn -- lquinn@tydingslaw.com -- at Tydings and Rosenberg
LLP.

Jay Zukerberg, Interested Party, represented by Michael Edward
Rowan, Shumaker Williams PC.

Christopher Casazza and Brent Erickson, Interested Parties,
represented by Michael Edward Rowan -- mrowan@shumakerwilliams.com
-- at Shumaker Williams PC.

Mr. William J. Peterson, III, Interested Party, represented by
Richard Melvin Karceski -- at Law Offices of Richard M Karceski.
Leticia Mejia, Claimant


GREAT AMERICAN CHICKEN: "King" Suit Moved to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Celena King, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Great
American Chicken Corp, Inc., doing business as: Kentucky Fried
Chicken, a California corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC646368, was removed on June 19, 2017 from
the Los Angeles Superior Court - Complex Civil West, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-04510-GW-AS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

Kentucky Fried Chicken, more commonly known by its initials KFC,
is an American fast food restaurant chain that specializes in
fried chicken. Headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, it is the
world's second-largest restaurant chain (as measured by sales)
after McDonald's, with almost 20,000 locations globally in 123
countries and territories as of December 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew John Matern, Esq.
          Kayvon Sabourian, Esq.
          Launa Adolph, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP PC
          1230 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531 1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901
          E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
                  ksabourian@maternlawgroup.com
                  ladolph@maternlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark D Kemple, Esq.
          Ashley Michelle Farrell, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Telephone: (310) 586 7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586 7800
          E-mail: kemplem@gtlaw.com
          farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com


HARRIS VENTURES: "Naves" Suit Asserts Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Monique Naves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Harris Ventures, Inc. (d/b/a Staff Zone),
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00971 (N.D. Ala., June 8, 2017), seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief and compensation for back pay,
lost wages, front pay, lost benefits, emotional distress and
punitive damages and/or any and all other damages permitted by
applicable law and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Staff Zone provides temporary workers for commercial construction,
industrial, and special events companies. It has branches in
several states.

Plaintiff responded to job posting that the Defendant had posted
but was informed that the Defendant hired for construction sites
and did not have jobs for women despite Naves' willingness to
perform all of the duties and responsibilities outlined in the job
description. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
      Lee Winston, Esq.
      Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
      Mintrel D. Martin, Esq.
      WINSTON COOKS, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 815
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Tel: (205) 502-0970
      Fax: (205) 278-5876


HORIZON GLOBAL: Accused by Craftwood II Inc. of Violating TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craftwood II, Inc., a California corporation, dba Bay Hardware,
and Craftwood III, Inc., a California corporation, dba Lunada Bay
Hardware, individually and as representatives of all others
similarly situated v. Horizon Global Corporation, a Delaware
corporation, dba Reese and dba Harper; Horizon Global Americas,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a Cequent Performance Products,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and successor by merger with Cequent
Consumer Products, Inc., an Ohio corporation, dba Reese and dba
Harper; Comprehensive Marketing, Inc., an Illinois corporation,
Case No. 1:17-cv-04129 (N.D. Ill., May 31, 2017), accuses the
Defendants of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiffs bring the proposed class action to recover damages
for and enjoin repeated junk faxing by the Defendants in direct
violation of the TCPA and the regulations promulgated by the
Federal Communications Commission.

Horizon Global Corporation, doing business as Reese and doing
business as Harper, is a Delaware corporation having its principal
place of business in Troy, Michigan.  Horizon Global Americas,
formerly known as Cequent Performance Products, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation and successor by merger with Cequent Consumer
Products, Inc., an Ohio corporation dba Reese and dba Harper, is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
Delaware, and having its principal place of business in Plymouth,
Michigan.  Comprehensive Marketing, Inc. is an Illinois
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Lombard, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C. Darryl Cordero, Esq.
          Matthew K. Brown, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 689-1750
          E-mail: cdc@paynefears.com
                  mkb@paynefears.com

               - and -

          Peter Trobe, Esq.
          TROBE, BABOWICE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          404 West Water Street
          Waukegan, IL 60085
          Telephone: (847) 625-8700
          E-mail: ptrobe@tbalaws.com


INDIANA, USA: Hines's Bid to Certify Denied Without Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Philip P. Simon denied without prejudice to refiling, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
JAMES HINES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ROBERT CARTER, JR., in his official capacity, Case No.
3:17-cv-00388-PPS-MGG (N.D. Ind.).

James Hines brings the case against the Commissioner of the State
of Indiana's Department of Correction, challenging a policy at the
Westville Correctional Facility concerning attorney telephone
calls. Along with the complaint, Mr. Hines filed a motion for
class certification.

"Rather than carry a pending motion that is aging without briefing
during the necessary discovery, I will deny the motion for class
certification without prejudice, and the motion can be refiled
when the posture of the case makes the issue ripe for briefing and
decision," Judge Simon stated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BtXgtJJW


INTEGRATED DEVICE: Class Actions on GigPeak Merger Closed in May
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Device Technology, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19,
2017 that the class actions related to its merger agreement with
GigPeak, Inc. was closed by the Court in May.

On February 13, 2017, the Company and GigPeak announced that they
had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
February 13, 2017.

On February 17, 2017, a purported class action was filed in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, (Carbajal v. Gigpeak, Inc., et al,
Case No. 17-cv-306571).  On March 8, 2017, a purported class
action was filed in the United States District Court of Delaware
(Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust v. GigPeak, Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-
VAC SRF).  On March 13, 2017, a purported class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Mendoza v. Gigpeak, Inc. et al, Case No. 3;17-cv-
01351-WHO).  On March 16, a second purported class action was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Travis v. GigPeak, Inc. et al, Case No.
5:17-cv-01441-LKH).

The Company was named as a defendant in the Carbajal and Gusinsky
complaints.  The Carbajal complaint asserted claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty,
including that defendants have failed to secure adequate deal
consideration as well as various other breaches of duty.

The Gusinsky, Travis and Mendoza complaints asserted claims under
Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
Gusinsky, Mendoza and Travis complaint alleged that the Schedule
14D-9 filed by GigPeak contained material omissions and
misstatements, and sought to enjoin and/or rescind the Offer as
well as certain other equitable relief, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Carbajal complaint was voluntarily dismissed on March 7, 2016.
Each of the remaining complaints was voluntarily dismissed by
Plaintiffs on or around April 7, 2017, and the actions were closed
by the Court on or around May 15, 2017 after Plaintiffs' fees were
agreed to by the parties.

Integrated Device Technology, Inc. designs, develops,
manufactures, and markets a range of semiconductor solutions for
the communications, computing, consumer, automotive, industrial,
and Internet-of-things end-markets.  It operates in two segments,
Communications; and Computing, Consumer, and Industrial.  The
Company markets its products primarily to original equipment
manufacturers through various channels, including direct sales,
distributors, electronic manufacturing suppliers, and independent
sales representatives.  Integrated Device Technology, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in San Jose, California.


INTRAWEST RESORT: Shareholder Drops Class Action Over Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Condon, writing for Aspen Times, reports that a stockholder
who filed a lawsuit June 2 to challenge the acquisition of
Intrawest Resort Holdings Inc. by affiliates of Aspen Skiing Co.
and KSL Capital Partners voluntarily dropped the litigation on
June 8.

A law firm for stockholder Edward Hyden filed a notice of
dismissal in U.S. District Court in Denver. No explanation for the
abrupt change of direction was provided.

"This notice of dismissal is being filed with the Court before
service by defendants of either an answer or a motion for summary
judgment," said the motion by attorney Juan Monteverde.

The case was dismissed without prejudice, which means it can be
filed again. That suggests no out-of-court settlement was reached.

Monteverde didn't return a telephone message seeking an
explanation. He said earlier in the week he doesn't discuss cases.

Intrawest announced April 10 it reached an agreement to sell its
holdings to a company created by Skico and KSL for $1.5 billion.
The deal includes Steamboat ski area and Winter Park, which
Intrawest holds in a long-term lease.

Hyden claimed the stockholders weren't given sufficient
information by Intrawest to judge if the proposed sale was in
their best interests. The lawsuit was filed against members of the
board of directors and senior management.

While Skico wasn't named as a defendant, the lawsuit could have
potentially affected the timing of the acquisition, which is
supposed to be completed in the third quarter of this year.

Hyden asked a judge to declare the litigation a class action
lawsuit on the assumption that other stockholders would join.

He also asked a judge to force Intrawest to produce more
information on Intrawest's finances -- specifically its financial
projections and the value analysis performed by the company's
financial advisers. Hyden wanted the proposed transaction enjoined
until after the information was made available.

"The merger consideration appears inadequate in light of the
company's recent financial performance," the lawsuit said.

Aspen Skiing Co. previously said it had no comment about the
litigation since it wasn't one of the parties. Intrawest's
investor relations office has not returned repeated messages. [GN]


INTUIT INC: Consolidated Class Suit on Identity Theft Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2017, that the Company is the subject of a consolidated
putative class action lawsuit related to stolen identity cases.

The Company said, "In fiscal 2015, Intuit was contacted by
regulatory authorities, including Congress, the Federal Trade
Commission, the SEC, the Department of Justice and certain state
Attorneys General, which are conducting inquiries in connection
with the increase during the 2015 tax season in attempts by
criminals using stolen identity information to file fraudulent tax
returns and claim refunds at the state and federal levels.  Intuit
is cooperating with all such government inquiries, including
formal requests for information.  In addition, we are the subject
of certain actions, including a consolidated putative class action
lawsuit by individuals who claim to have suffered damages in
connection with the foregoing events.  We believe that the
allegations contained within these lawsuits are without merit, and
we intend to vigorously defend against them."

Intuit Inc. provides business and financial management solutions
for small businesses, consumers, and accounting professionals
primarily in the United States and internationally.  The Company
sells its products and services through various sales and
distribution channels, including Websites, promotions, call
centers, retail locations, and online mobile application stores,
as well as through alliance partners, such as banks, credit
unions, and other financial institutions.  Intuit Inc. was founded
in 1983 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.


IOWA, USA: Fisher Moves to Certify Iowans With Disabilities Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MELINDA FISHER, SHANNON G.
by and through her guardian, BRANDON R. by and through his
guardian, MARTY M. by and through his guardian, MISTY M. by and
through her guardian, and NEAL SIEGEL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. KIM REYNOLDS, in her official
capacity as Governor of Iowa; CHARLES PALMER, in his official
capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Human Services,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB (S.D. Iowa), ask the Court to
certify a class so that there can be class-wide resolution of the
issues facing the Plaintiffs and other HCBS service recipients
similarly situated.

The class consists of Iowans over the age of 21 who:

     (i) were enrolled in the Intellectual Disability, Brain
         Injury, or Health and Disability Home and
         Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers on or after
         April 1, 2016;

    (ii) have received HCBS Waivers since April 1, 2016; and

   (iii) have had, or will have their hours, budgets, or staffing
         levels for HCBS waivers directly or indirectly
         terminated, reduced, denied or not provided with
         reasonable promptness by the Defendants or their agents
         after April 1, 2016, based on the Defendants and their
         agents refusal to modify their policies and practices.

The Plaintiffs are individuals with intellectual disabilities,
physical disabilities or brain injuries, who are able to stay in
their homes in their communities, rather than being relegated to
segregated settings where only individuals with disabilities live,
because their services and supports are funded through a Medicaid
program known as the Home and Community-Based Services Waiver
Program.  The Plaintiffs bring the action for injunctive and
declaratory relief only.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Roxanne Conlin LLC,
the National Health Law Program, and Disability Rights Iowa as co-
class counsel in the action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4jr6EvwV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roxanne B. Conlin, Esq.
          ROXANNE B. CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          319 Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 283-1111
          E-mail: roxlaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Jane Hudson, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Miller, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS IOWA
          400 East Court Avenue, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 278-2502
          E-mail: jhudson@driowa.org
                  cmiller@driowa.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Edwards, Esq.
          Abigail Coursolle, Esq.
          NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM, INC.
          200 N. Greensboro St. Suite D-13
          Carrboro, NC 27510
          Telephone: (919) 968-6308
          E-mail: edwards@healthlaw.org
                  coursolle@healthlaw.org


J. BALTAZAR: Faces "Rinaldi" Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J. Baltazar. The
case is captioned as Michael Rinaldi, And those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. John Doe No. 1, J. Baltazar, and John
Doe No. 2, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01089-SHR-RM (M.D.
Pa., June 21, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sylvia
H. Rambo.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


JUNO USA: Shortchanges Employees, Drivers' Class Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
Juno, which advertised itself as a driver-friendly rival to Uber
and Lyft, was a "classic bait and switch" that enriched its
founders and shortchanged its employees, New York City drivers say
in a federal class action in Manhattan.

Suing on behalf of drivers who jumped ship from Uber or Lyft, lead
plaintiff Mohammed Razzak claims Juno's promises of equity sharing
was a "modern day startup fairy tale" that turned into a bait and
switch when the company was bought for $200 million in April by
co-defendant GT Forge dba Gett.

With unhappy drivers filing employment lawsuits that put Uber and
Lyft in the news, Juno entered the market by advertising that its
drivers would be owners of the company, with share distributions
being made until 2026, until drivers would own 50 percent of the
"socially responsible."

Juno recruited highly rated Uber/Lyft drivers licensed by the New
York City Taxi and License Commission. Such drivers would already
be insured, and familiar with New York City streets and the mobile
technology, Razzak and two named co-plaintiffs say in the June 9
lawsuit.

To attract drivers, Juno offered a "signing bonus" new drivers and
a "transfer bonus" for leaving Uber, lower commissions deducted
from their fares, and profit sharing.

"In sinister fashion, it set out to acquire drivers who could
continue working for Uber and Lyft except promote Juno to Uber and
Lyft customers in the process" the complaint states.

Razzak calls that "a series of blatant falsehoods in the chase of
a hundred-million-dollar buyout offer. "

He also sued Juno's founder and CEO Talmon Marco, Vulcan Cars LLC,
and Gett.

After Gett bought Juno in April, Juno "swiftly and resolutely
turned their back on driving partners" and extinguished their
shares for no value or for "de minimis cash consideration," a
fraction of what Juno already owed them, according to the
complaint.

It adds: "(A)lmost all had acquired shares in the company. Many
had opted to accept $100 in shares of Juno instead of $100 cash as
a sign-up bonus when being a top-rated driver who switches from
Uber or Lyft to Juno. But those shares turned out to be
worthless."

Juno also miscalculated its own commissions based on net fares,
which include taxes and ancillary fees, though its agreements with
drivers said the drivers would not bear any part of the costs,
Razzak says.

The 29-page complaint cites a Bloomberg news report that the cash
payouts to drivers ranged from $100 to $251 for Juno drivers who
worked more than 50 hours a week for the past six months. "Even if
Juno had given $250 to every driver who was active as of February
[2017], that would amount to about 1.5 percent of the company's
valuation from the sale," the complaint states, directly quoting
Bloomberg.

The drivers seek class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages for securities fraud, false advertising, breach of
contract, breach of faith, fraudulent misrepresentation and
conversion.

Representatives for the defendants did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mohammed Gangat in New Hyde
Park.

The case is captioned, MOHAMMED RAZZAK, MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and
MOHAMMAD ISLAM, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JUNO USA, LP, VULCAN CARS LLC, TALMON
MARCO, and GT FORGE, INC. d/b/a GETT, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-
04373 (S.D.N.Y June 9, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
     27005 79 Avenue
     New Hyde Park, NY 11040-1546
     Telephone:  (646) 556-6112
     Facsimile:  (646) 556-6113
     Email: mgangat@gangatllc.com

          - and -

     Philip M. Hines, Esq.
     HELD & HINES, LLP
     370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 800
     New York, New York 10017
     Telephone: (212) 696-4529
     Facsimile:  (646) 590-4295
     E-mail: phines@heldhines.com


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Senne Appeals Ruling in FLSA Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Senne, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to the lawsuit styled Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals
Baseball Co, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are AARON SENNE, MICHAEL LIBERTO, OLIVER
ODLE, BRAD MCATEE, CRAIG BENNIGSON, MATT LAWSON, KYLE WOODRUFF,
RYAN KIEL, KYLE NICHOLSON, BRAD STONE, MATT DALY, AARON MEADE,
JUSTIN MURRAY, JAKE KAHAULELIO, RYAN KHOURY, DUSTIN PEASE, JEFF
NADEAU, JON GASTON, BRANDON HENDERSON, TIM PAHUTA, LEE SMITH,
JOSEPH NEWBY, RYAN HUTSON, MATT FREVERT, ROBERTO ORTIZ, WITER
JIMENEZ, KRIS WATTS, MITCH HILLIGOSS, DANIEL BRITT, YADEL MARTI,
HELDER VELAQUEZ, JORGE JIMENEZ, JORGE MINYETY, EDWIN MAYSONET,
JOSE DIAZ, NICK GIARRAPUTO, LAUREN GAGNIER, LEONARD DAVIS, GASPAR
SANTIAGO, GRANT DUFF, OMAR AGUILAR, MARK WAGNER, DAVID QUINOWSKI,
BRANDON PINCKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated, JAKE OPITZ and BRETT NEWSOME.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1,
2017, Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball
Corp., et al., Case No. 17-80088.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of all minor league baseball players employed by Major
League Baseball or any MLB franchise under the Minor League
Uniform Player Contract.

The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas
City Royals Baseball Co, et al., Case No. 17-16245, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 14, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- Appellants Omar Aguilar, Craig Bennigson, Daniel Britt,
      Matt Daly, Leonard Davis, Jose Diaz, Grant Duff, Matt
      Frevert, Lauren Gagnier, Jon Gaston, Nick Giarraputo,
      Brandon Henderson, Mitch Hilligoss, Ryan Hutson, Jorge
      Jimenez, Witer Jimenez, Jake Kahaulelio, Ryan Khoury, Ryan
      Kiel, Matt Lawson, Michael Liberto, Yadel Marti, Edwin
      Maysonet, Brad McAtee, Aaron Meade, Jorge Minyety, Justin
      Murray, Jeff Nadeau, Joseph Newby, Brett Newsome, Kyle
      Nicholson, Oliver Odle, Jake Opitz, Roberto Ortiz, Tim
      Pahuta, Dustin Pease, Brandon Pinckney, David Quinowski,
      Gaspar Santiago, Aaron Senne, Lee Smith, Brad Stone, Helder
      Velaquez, Mark Wagner, Kris Watts and Kyle Woodruff's
      opening brief is due on September 22, 2017;

   -- Appellees AZPB L.P., Angels Baseball LP, Athletics
      Investment Group, LLC, Baseball Club of Seattle, LLP,
      Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Cincinnati Reds, LLC,
      Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., Detroit Tigers, Inc.,
      Houston Baseball Partners LLC, Kansas City Royals Baseball
      Corp., Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC, Los Angeles
      Dodgers LLC, Miami Marlins, L.P., Milwaukee Brewers
      Baseball Club, Inc., Minnesota Twins, LLC, New York Yankees
      P'ship, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Padres
      L.P., Pittsburgh Associates, LP, Rangers Baseball Express,
      LLC, Rangers Baseball, LLC, Rogers Blue Jays Baseball
      Partnership, San Diego Padres Baseball Club, L.P., San
      Francisco Baseball Associates, LLC, Allan Huber Selig, St.
      Louis Cardinals, LLC and Sterling Mets L.P.'s answering
      brief is due on October 23, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Robert L. King, Esq.
          Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
          Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1625
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: rking@koreintillery.com
                  stillery@koreintillery.com
                  azigler@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 788-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: bpouya@pswlaw.com
                  dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP., MIAMI
MARLINS, L.P., SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, LLC, OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association, DBA
Major League Baseball, ALLAN HUBER SELIG, "Bud", ANGELS BASEBALL
LP, ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC, COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB,
LTD., CINCINNATI REDS, LLC, HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC,
ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL
PARTNERSHIP, PADRES L.P., SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.,
MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC, DETROIT TIGERS, INC., LOS ANGELES DODGERS
LLC, STERLING METS L.P., AZPB L.P., NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP,
RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC, MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB,
INC., CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC, PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, LP,
BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP, LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY
LLC, and RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC, are represented by:

          Neil Abramson, Esq.
          Elise M. Bloom, Esq.
          Adam M. Lupion, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: Nabramson@proskauer.com
                  ebloom@proskauer.com
                  alupion@proskauer.com

               - and -

          Harold M. Brody, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com

               - and -

          D. Gregory Valenza, Esq.
          SHAW VALENZA LLP
          300 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-5960
          Facsimile: (415) 983-5963
          E-mail: gvalenza@shawvalenza.com


KAPILOFF'S GLASS: Fails to Pay Full Wages & Overtime, Moore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES J. MOORE on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KAPILOFF'S GLASS, INC., Case No. 17-16854 (Mass.
Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., May 31, 2017), is brought pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws.

Mr. Moore alleges that the Defendant violates MGL by failing to
pay him Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for travel
time.  He also alleges that the Defendant automatically deducts a
30-minute meal break even though meals are commonly not taken, and
the Defendant has no policy for reporting missed meals or
compensating the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated for
missed meals.  He further alleges that the Defendant fails to pay
him and all others similarly situated their full wages, overtime,
and wages on time.

The Defendant is a corporation with a principal place of business
in Adams, Massachusetts, doing business in Boston, Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is currently employed by the Defendant and his job
duties included primarily the installation of interior glass for
commercial locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter F. Russell, Esq.
          RUSSELL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          200 Highland Avenue, Suite 304
          Needham, MA 02494
          Telephone: (781) 444-5151
          E-mail: Prussell@russlegal.com


KEMPHARM INC: Class Lawsuit in Iowa Still in Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
KemPharm, Inc. continues to defend in a class action suit pending
in Iowa, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2017.

In December 2016, a class action suit was filed against the
Company by a stockholder in the Iowa District Court in Johnson
County alleging that the Company, certain of its senior executives
and directors who signed the registration statement in connection
with its initial public offering, and each of the investment banks
that acted as underwriters for the offering negligently, issued
untrue statements of material facts and omitted to state material
facts required to be stated in the registration statement and
incorporated offering materials that the Company filed with the
SEC in support of the offering.

The plaintiff does not quantify any alleged damages in his
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, the
plaintiff seeks to recover damages and obtain other relief on
behalf of himself and all other persons who purchased the
Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the offering and
the registration statement and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

In January 2017, the class action suit was removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff
has since filed a motion to remand the case to the Iowa District
Court, and that motion is still pending. The suit is still in a
preliminary stage and has not yet been set for trial.

KemPharm said, "The Company is unable to predict the timing or
outcome of this litigation as of the date of this report."

KemPharm, Inc., a clinical-stage specialty pharmaceutical company,
discovers and develops new proprietary prodrugs in the United
States.  The Company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in
Coralville, Iowa.


KISS MY FACE: "Maniaci" Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stefania Daidone Maniaci,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Kiss My Face Corporation, Kiss My Face, LLC, and
Bymac Corp., Case No. 603855/2017, was removed on June 16, 2017,
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-
cv-03670 to the proceeding.

Kiss My Face develops natural and organic body care products. It
offers deodorants, foot scrubs and creams, hand creams, and
moisture shaves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
          GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
          2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 201
          Bronx, NY 10469
          Telephone: (718) 708 5322
          Facsimile: (708) 708 5966
          E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com

Kiss My Face, LLC is represented by:

          Nathaniel Ethan Marmon, Esq.
          CHAFFETZ LINDSEY LLP
          1700 Broadway, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 257 6953
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6950
          E-mail: nathaniel.marmon@chaffetzlindsey.com


LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------s
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landry's Seafood
House - North Carolina, Inc.  The case is styled as Victor
Andrews, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Landry's Seafood House - North Carolina, Inc.,
and Morton's of Chicago/Fifth Avenue, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-03734 (E.D.N.Y., June 21, 2017).

Landry's Seafood offers Gulf Coast tradition features fresh fish
and seafood selections.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


LEROY BACA: 9th Cir. Hears Appeal over Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former inmates of Los Angeles County jails asked the Ninth Circuit
to revive civil rights class actions alleging that former Sheriff
Leroy Baca's jailers forced them to sleep on the floor.

The Ninth Circuit on June 7, heard multiple cases related to the
allegations. The 2007 lawsuits Baeza v. Baca and Corral v. Baca
alleged the same facts: that jailers denied then bunk beds. All
complaints sought damages for deprivation of civil rights.

Arguing for the inmates, Marion Yagman said the Ninth Circuit
should reverse Los Angeles Federal Court's dismissal of the cases,
in part because the court found the plaintiffs had taken too long
to take the cases to trial.

U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson had ruled that the forced
floor-sleeping was unconstitutional, but the plaintiffs never
tested their damages claims before jurors.

In a brief to the Ninth Circuit, Yagman said it was unfair for the
court to blame the plaintiffs for the delay in reaching trial.

"The only delay attributable to plaintiffs' counsel is excusable,"
Yagman wrote in the April 2016 brief. "Plaintiffs' counsel delayed
from December 2012 to January 2014 because of a hip ailment and
hip replacement."

In his answering brief, the county's attorney Justin Clark, of
Venice Beach, said it was the plaintiffs' burden to advance the
case to trial, not the court or the county, as Yagman argued.

Clark wrote that while the attorney's illness was unfortunate, it
did not create "extraordinary circumstances" that would have
prevented the plaintiffs from proceeding.

"Delay attributable to counsel for any reason is less likely to
prompt relief, because it does not explain the failure to
prosecute by plaintiffs themselves," Clark wrote.

At the hearing on June 7 in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of
Appeals in Pasadena, Clark argued that though Yagman was suffering
health issues, it had not stopped her from litigating a related
case at the same time.

"I'm sensitive to the concept of there being a disability that
would prevent an attorney from having the ability to work on a
particular case," Clark said. "But when you make that
representation and then at the same time you're actively
litigating another case, it's a little hard to swallow."

Yagman said in rebuttal that she had undergone hip replacement
surgery and was suffering a lot of pain and did not recall filing
documents in the related case.

"It would have been very limited, because I was taking pain
medications, prior to having the surgery and afterward, for quite
a long time. I don't think I would have been doing a lot of legal
work," Yagman said.

The panel asked Yagman why her partner at the firm did not take
over the case while she recovered.

"I don't think his knowledge of the case at the point would have
enabled him to. So I just don't think it was a reasonable thing to
have happened. I ultimately would have had to have prepared all of
the documents," Yagman said. "It couldn't have gone forward in the
condition I was in."

Yagman and Clark also argued S. Thomas v. Leroy Baca, which
alleged that officials denied an inmate mental health treatment
for 23 days, and another class action related to sleeping on
jailhouse floors, S. Thomas v. County of Los Angeles.

Baca was sentenced Baca to 3 years in federal prison this year for
obstructing an FBI investigation of jailhouse abuses.

Ninth Circuit Judges Kermit Lipez, Carlos Bea and Andrew Hurwitz
on June 7 did not indicate when they would rule.


LIFE ALERT: Payments to Begin to Class Members
----------------------------------------------
Class counsel announced on June 11 that, following final approval
of a $1.9 million class action settlement brought by California
class members against Life Alert Emergency Response, Inc., the
settlement administrator has begun mailing settlement payments to
qualified class members. The suit was filed on September 9, 2014,
and alleged that Life Alert -- a maker of emergency-response
devices for senior citizens -- misclassified its workers as
independent contractors, causing unlawful pay shortages. The court
granted final approval of the settlement on March 2, 2017.

The plaintiffs and settlement class are represented by class
counsel James (JJ) Johnston and Kelly Y. Chen. The case is
Barragan v. Life Alert Emergency Response Inc., Los Angeles
Superior Court case number BC556127. [GN]


MDL 1566: $15 Million Accord in Natural Gas Suit Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert C. Jones, United States District Judge in Nevada,
granted preliminary approval of two settlements reached in the
cases:

   -- Learjet, Inc., et al. v. ONEOK Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-
cv-00233-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.); and

   -- Heartland Regional Medical Center, et al. v. ONEOK Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00987-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.).

Judge Jones also preliminarily certified the settlement classes
and approved notices to class members.

The cases are part of the, IN RE WESTERN STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL
GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL Docket No. 1566, Base Case No. 2:03-
cv-01431-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.).

The Settlements create a total settlement fund of $15,125,000.00
in cash, plus any interest accrued, before deductions for court-
approved expenses and attorneys' fees.

For purposes of determining whether the Agreements should be
preliminarily approved, the Court conditionally certifies, for
purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Classes defined
as follows:

     (a) "Kansas Class"

         All industrial and commercial direct purchasers of
natural gas for their own use or consumption during the period
from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, and which gas was
used or consumed by them in Kansas.  Excluded from the Class are
(a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent
of such purchase(s) for resale); (b) entities that purchased
natural  gas for  generation of electricity for the purpose of
sale (to the extent of such purchase(s) for generation);  (c)
defendants  and  their  predecessors,  affiliates,  and
subsidiaries; (d) the federal government and its agencies; and (e)
Reorganized FLI, Inc. (f/k/a Farmland Industries, Inc.). For
purposes of the Kansas Class definition, a "direct purchaser"
means an industrial or commercial entity that bought natural gas
for its own use or consumption directly from any of the defendants
in the Actions, or from a seller other than a local distribution
company.

     (b) "Missouri Class"

         All industrial and commercial direct purchasers of
natural gas for their own use or consumption during the period
from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, and which gas was
used or consumed by them in Missouri.  Excluded from the Class are
(a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to the extent
of such purchase(s) for resale); (b) entities that purchased
natural  gas for  generation of electricity for the purpose of
sale (to the extent of such purchase(s) for generation);  (c)
defendants  and  their  predecessors,  affiliates,  and
subsidiaries; (d) the federal government and its agencies; and (e)
Reorganized FLI, Inc. (f/k/a Farmland Industries, Inc.).  For
purposes of the Missouri Class definition, a "direct purchaser"
means an industrial or commercial entity that bought natural gas
for its own use or consumption directly from any of the defendants
in the Actions, or from a seller other than a local distribution
company.

"Class Period" means, with respect to each of the Mo-Kan Classes,
the period from January 1, 2000 through October 31, 2002.

The Settlement Fund is allocated as follows:

     $9,528,750 to the Kansas Class; and

     $5,596,250 to the Missouri Class.

The Parties include plaintiffs Learjet, Inc., Topeka Unified
School District 501, Heartland Regional Medical Center, Prime
Tanning Corp., and Northwest Missouri State University, both
individually and on behalf of proposed settlement classes of
industrial and commercial purchasers of natural gas for their own
use or consumption in the States of Kansas and Missouri, and other
affiliated Releasors defined in the Agreements, along with the
Settling Defendants and other affiliated Releasees as defined in
the Agreements.

The lawsuits allege that Defendants El Paso Corporation (n/k/a El
Paso LLC) and El Paso Merchant Energy,L.P. (n/k/a El Paso
Marketing Company, L.L.C.) and CMS Energy Corporation, CMS Energy
Resources Management Company (f/k/a CMS Marketing, Services and
Trading Company), and CMS Field Services, Inc. engaged in an
unlawful agreement or conspiracy to manipulate the prices of
natural gas during the period from January 1, 2000 to October 31,
2002.

Plaintiffs further claim that certain commercial and industrial
purchasers who purchased natural gas other than from utilities or
local distribution companies and for their own use or consumption
in Kansas or Missouri may recover for the effect that the alleged
conspiracy had on the prices of the natural gas they purchased.
Plaintiffs allege that, as result of the unlawful conspiracy, they
and other purchasers paid more for natural gas than they would
have absent the conspiracy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

The Court will hold a final Fairness Hearing for August 9, 2017,
at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4B of this Court, located at 333 S. Las
Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89101. At the Fairness Hearing, the
Court will consider and/or determine, among other things: (i)
whether to finally certify for settlement purposes only the Mo-Kan
Classes as against the Settling Defendants; (ii) whether to
finally approve the Settlements as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(iii) whether the Notice Plan and Class Notice(s) provided
complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and due
process; (iv) whether to enter the Final Order and Judgment
approving the applicable Settlement; and/or (v) whether to grant
the Fee and Expense Application(s) submitted by Class Counsel
and/or the applications for incentive award(s) to Plaintiffs and,
if so, the amounts thereof to be awarded out of the Settlement
Fund(s).

At the hearing, Class Counsel will also ask the Court to award
attorneys' fees not to exceed 35% of the remaining Settlement Fund
after any fees and expenses are reimbursed.   Up to $100,000 in
administrative fees will be paid from the Settlement Fund to the
claims administrator that will assist with the processing of
notices, requests for exclusion, and other settlement-related
tasks.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Polsinelli PC, Barry Law
Office, LLC, and McCallister Law Group, LLC to represent the
settlement class members in Kansas.

The Court has appointed the law firms of Polsinelli PC and Barry
Law Office, LLC to represent the settlement class members in
Missouri.

Dahl Administration in Minneapolis, Minn., serves as claims
administrator.

Addition information on the case is available at:

     https://www.naturalgasantitrustsettlement.com/


MDL 2143: hhgregg Seeks to Sell Class Action Assets
---------------------------------------------------
hhgregg, Inc. and its affiliated debtors seek Bankruptcy Court
approval to sell their so-called Class Action assets according to
a sealed bid process.

The Class Action assets include the Debtors' potential recovery in
these cases:

     * In re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation;
       3:07-cv-05944; United States District Court for the
       Northern District of California.  Defendants in the case
       include LG, Hitachi, Panasonic, Philips Electronics,
       Samsung, TCL, Thomson Consumer Electronics, and Toshiba.
       The Debtors already filed a claim in this case.

     * In re: Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust Litigation;
       3:10-MD-2143; United States District Court for the
       Northern District of California.  Defendants in the case
       include BenQ, LG, Philips, NEC, Panasonic, Samsung, Sharp,
       Sony, and Toshiba.  The Debtors already filed a claim in
       this case.

     * In re: Lithium Ion Batteries Antitrust Litigation;
       4:13-md-02420; United States District Court for the
       Northern District of California.  Defendants in the case
       include Hitachi, LG Chem, Maxwell, NEC, PCM, Samsung,
       Sanyo and Toshiba.

     * In re Capacitors Antitrust Lawsuit; 3:14-cv-03264; United
       States District Court for the Northern District of
       California.  Defendants in the case include American
       Shizuki, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Panasonic, KEMET, NEC Tokin,
       Nissei Electronic, Rubycon, Samsung, Sanyo, Taiyo Yuden,
       TDK, United Chemi-con, and Vishay Polytech.

     * American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation.
       The Defendants in the case are American Express Company
       and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.

     * Prescription Drug Price-Fixing (Pay-for-Delay) and Product
       Liability Litigation, which include:

       a. In re: Actos (Pioglitazone) Products Liability
          Litigation; 12-cv-00064; United States District Court
          for the District of Western Louisiana

       b. In re: Adderall XR Antitrust Litigation; 1:12-cv-03711;
          United States District Court for the Southern District
          of New York.

       c. In re: Aggrenox Antitrust Litigation; 3:14-md-02516;
          United States District Court for the District of
          Connecticut

       d. In re: Celexa and Lexapro Products Liability
          Litigation; 4:06-md-01736; United States District Court
          for the Eastern District of Missouri

       e. In re: Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation; 3:11-cv-05479;
          United States District Court for the District of New
          Jersey

       f. In re: Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Products
          Liability Litigation; 1:13-md-02428; United States
          District Court for the District of Massachusetts

       g. In re: Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust
          Litigation; 2:16-md-02724; United States District Court
          for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

       h. In re: Gleevec Antitrust Litigation; 15-12732; United
          States District Court for the District of Massachusetts

       i. In re: Invokana Products Liability Litigation; 3:16-md-
          02750; United States District Court for the District of
          New Jersey

       j. In re: K-Dur Antitrust Litigation; 2:01-cv-01652;
          United States District Court for the District of New
          Jersey

       k. In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation;
          2:12-cv-00995; United States District Court for the
          District of New Jersey

       l. In re: Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation; 3:14-md-02521;
          United States District Court for the Northern District
          of California

       m. In re: Loestrin 24 FE Antitrust Litigation; 1:13-md-
          02472; United States District Court for the District of
          Rhode Island

       n. In re: Mirena IUD Products Liability Litigation;
          13-md-2434; United States District Court for the
          Southern District of New York

       o. In re: Modafinil Antitrust Litigation; 2:06-cv-1833;
          United States District Court for the Eastern District
          of Pennsylvania

       p. In re: Niaspan Antitrust Litigation; 2:13-md-02460;
          United States District Court for the Eastern District
          of Pennsylvania

       q. In re: Suboxone (Buprenorphine Hydrochloride and
          Naloxone) Antitrust Litigation; 2:13-md-02445; United
          States District Court for the Eastern District of
          Pennsylvania

       r. In re: Taxotere (Docetaxel) Products Liability
          Litigation; 2:16-md-02740; United States District Court
          for the Eastern District of Louisiana

       s. In re: Testosterone Replacement Therapy Products
          Liability Litigation; 1:14-cv-01748; United States
          District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

       t. In re: Zofran (Ondansetron)Products Liability
          Litigation; 1:15-md-02657; United States District Court
          for the District of Massachusetts

       u. In re: Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrocholoride) Products
          Liability Litigation; 12-md-2342; United States
          District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

hhgregg says if additional Class Action Assets are added, notice
will be provided to the Potential Bidders.

                         Bids Due July 21

hhgregg asks the Court to approve guidelines that will govern the
sale, and establish this timeline:

     -- June 27, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) as
        the hearing date to consider approval of the bid
        procedures;

     -- July 19, 2017 at 5 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) as the
        deadline to file objections, if any, to the Sale of the
        Class Action Assets;

     -- July 21, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) as
        the deadline for the submission of bids; and

     -- July 26, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) as
        the hearing date to consider approval of the sale to the
        winning bidder.

To participate in the formal bidding process or otherwise be
considered for any purpose, a person interested in submitting a
bid
must, prior to the Bid Deadline, deliver to each of the Notice
Parties, these documents:

     1) an email to counsel to the Debtors:

        Jeff Hokanson, Esq.
        Sarah Fowler, Esq.
        Ice Miller
        One American Square, Suite 2900
        Indianapolis, IN 46282
        E-mail: jeff.hokanson@icemiller.com
                sarah.fowler@icemiller.com

        confirming that the Interested Party will keep all
        diligence materials confidential;

     2) a statement and other factual support demonstrating to
        the Estate Parties' satisfaction in the exercise of their
        reasonable business judgment that the Interested Party
        has a bona fide interest in purchasing one or more of the
        Class Action Assets; provided that such information shall
        not be required to the extent the Interested Party's
        interest and wherewithal are acknowledged in writing by
        the Estate Parties; and

     3) preliminary proof by the Interested Party of its
        financial capacity to close a proposed transaction at the
        Purchase Price, which may include current unaudited or
        verified financial statements of, or verified financial
        commitments obtained by, the Interested Party (or, if the
        Interested Party is an entity formed for the purpose of
        acquiring the property to be sold, the party that will
        bear liability for a breach).

Bids must be accompanied by a deposit in the form of a wire
transfer or certified check or such other form acceptable to the
Estate Parties, in consultation with the Consultation Parties,
payable to the order of the Debtors, in an amount equal to 10% of
the cash portion of the Purchase Price being bid.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based hhgregg, Inc., is an appliance,
electronics and furniture retailer.  Founded in 1955, hhgregg is a
multi-regional retailer currently with 220 stores in 19 states
that also offers market-leading global and local brands at value
prices nationwide via http://www.hhgregg.com/

hhgregg Inc., Gregg Appliances Inc. and HHG Distributing LLC
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Lead Case No. 17-01302) on March 6, 2017.  The
petitions were signed by Kevin J. Kovacs, chief financial officer.

At the time of the filing, hhgregg and HHG Distributing estimated
assets and liabilities of less than $50,000.  Gregg Appliances
estimated assets and liabilities at $100 million to $500 million.

The Debtors engaged Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Ice Miller LLP
as counsel; Berkeley Research Group, LLC as financial advisor;
Stifel and Miller Buckfire & Co. as investment banker; Hilco IP
Services as intellectual property advisor; Altus Group US, Inc. as
tax advisor; and Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc. as claims and
noticing agent.

The U.S. Trustee has appointed creditors to serve on the official
committee of unsecured creditors in the case of Gregg Appliances,
Inc., Case No. 17-01303-RLM-11.  No official committee has been
appointed in the cases of hhgregg, Inc., No. 17-01302-RLM-11 or
HHG Distributing, LLC, No. 17- 01304-RLM-11.

The Committee hired Cooley LLP and Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP as
counsel, and ASK LLP as avoidance claims counsel.  The Committee
retained Province Inc. as financial advisor.

Counsel to the Agent for the Debtors' prepetition secured lenders
and the lenders providing DIP financing are Sean M. Monahan, Esq.,
at Choate, Hall & Stewart LLP; and Jay Jaffe, Esq., at Faegre
Baker Daniels, LLP.

Counsel to the FILO Agent is Stuart Brown, Esq., at DLA Piper LLP.


MDL 2545: 230 TRT Claims v. AbbVie Pending in State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------
AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2017, that product liability cases are pending in
which plaintiffs generally allege that AbbVie and other
manufacturers of TRTs did not adequately warn about risks of
certain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood
clots. Approximately 4,150 claims are consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545.
Approximately 230 claims are pending in various state courts.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages.

AbbVie is a global, research-based biopharmaceutical company
formed in 2013 following separation from Abbott Laboratories
(Abbott).


MDL 2779: Neshannock Suit v. FieldTurf Transferred to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled NESHANNOCK TOWNSHIP SCHOOL
DISTRICT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF USA INC., a Florida
corporation, FIELDTURF INC., a Canadian corporation, and FIELDTURF
TARKETT SAS, a French corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00374, was
transferred on June 16, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-04391 to the proceeding.

The Neshannock case is being consolidated with MDL 2779 in re:
Fieldturf Artificial Turf Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on July 1, 2017. The
actions share factual questions arising from allegations that
between 2005 to at least 2012, FieldTurf sold defective artificial
turf to both public and private customers throughout the United
States, and that FieldTurf knew the turf was defective, but
nevertheless misrepresented it as superior to and more durable
than its competitors' turf products. The actions thus implicate
common issues concerning the development, manufacture, testing,
and marketing of the defendants' turf, as well as FieldTurf's
knowledge of the alleged defects.

Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent
inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues, class
certification, and other pretrial matters, and conserve the
resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Michael A. Shipp, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:17-md-02779-MAS-TJB

Neshannock Township School District is a public school district
located in Lawrence County, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281 7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281 4229


MELCON GENERAL: Faces Sunbelt Rentals Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
SUNBELT RENTALS, INC. ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. MELCON GENERAL CONTRACTORS L.L.C., ELUL 1080 LEGGETT
LLC, ERIC MENDOZA, JOHN DOE AND JOHN DOE, Case No. 21160/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 31, 2017), is filed as a putative class action
lawsuit against the Defendants.

The case is assigned to Judge Donna M. Mills.

Melcon General Contractors LLC is a full service Project
Development and Construction Company specializing in commercial
and residential projects.  ELUL 1080 Leggett LLC is corporation
filed with the New York State Department of State.  The Company is
based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

Defendants MELCON GENERAL CONTRACTORS L.L.C., ELUL 1080 LEGGETT
LLC, ERIC MENDOZA, JOHN DOE AND JOHN DOE are represented by:

          Steven Spada, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN HALL PLLC
          80 Broad Street, Suite 303
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 768-4100
          Facsimile: (646) 219-2450
          E-mail: sspada@goldsteinhall.com


MERCEDES BENZ: Could Face Potential Suit Over Burning Smart Cars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Romo, writing for ABC13, reports area roads and highways
can be scary, but most drivers don't expect the danger to come
from inside their own vehicle.

Smart car driver Ken Osborne said he was seconds away from severe
injury or death.

"A gentleman pulled up next to me and started waving to me,
frantically. I thought it was road rage," he said. "He almost
pushed me off the road."

The good Samaritan was actually warning Osborne that the back of
his 2008 Smart Fortwo car was on fire as he drove home from lunch
on June 7.

"It was almost like an explosion. It was a burst of flames,"
Osborne said.

He said he barely made it out in time before the flames covered
the car.

As a professional photographer, his instinct was to start
recording, however he was shaken from how close he was to
disaster.

"If I had gone another quarter of a mile, you wouldn't be talking
to me today. I'd be in a burn ward or in the ground," Osborne
said.

Osborne became frustrated to learn, he's not the first Smart car
driver to report a similar fire.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an
investigation in December after eight similar reports of 2008 and
2009 model Smart car fires.

Attorney Randy Sorrels, Esq. of Abraham, Watkins, Nichols,
Sorrels, Agosto & Aziz said even though the federal investigation
remains open, he believes the manufacturer, Mercedes Benz should
alert drivers to a potential issue.

While the investigation continues, Sorrels said there's not much
owners can do other than be aware of a potential risk.

"A car owner just has to wait and hope and pray that nothing
happens to their vehicle," Sorrels said.

Sorrels said the owners can collectively file a class action
lawsuit because the resale value of those models could be
affected.

He said with the time since the NHTSA started the investigation
late last year, Mercedes should have found a solution or isolated
the problem by now.

"There should have been some type of solution, some type of
problem identifications that should have occurred in these last
six months," Sorrels said.

Mercedes Benz USA issued a statement saying:

"The safety of our customers is our primary concern and we are
cooperating with NHTSA in its inquiry. Such inquiries from the
NHTSA are not unusual in such cases and are part of the exchange
of information between the authorities and the automotive
manufacturers worldwide."

An answer Osborne said is not good enough.

"What is it going to take? Is it going to take somebody burning to
death in it?" said Osborne. [GN]


METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: "Saska" Class Deal Has Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New York granted the parties' motion for
final approval of the settlement and class certification in the
case styled FILIP SASKA, TOMAS NADRCHAL, and STEPHEN MICHELMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, Defendant, 2017 NY
Slip Op 27202 (N.Y.).

By order dated November 10, 2016, the court granted preliminary
approval of the parties' amended class action settlement
agreement. The parties move for final approval of the settlement
and class certification. The parties seek final approval of the
settlement, which principally requires the Museum to change its
signs to more clearly and prominently inform the public that the
listed admission prices are merely suggested, and not mandatory,
as the only claim being settled is a claim for injunctive relief
to remedy the Museum's allegedly deceptive admission policy and
attendant signage as violative of GBL Section 349.

The Grunewald plaintiffs made an objection but the objection is on
the same grounds as in their opposition to preliminary approval,
while Anna St. John, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise
Institute Center for Class Action Fairness, objects on the grounds
that the Settlement is purportedly a worthless disclosure-only
settlement and that the $350,000 in fees requested by plaintiffs'
attorneys at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP (ECBA) are
excessive.

Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich held that the outcome achieved by
the Settlement is outstanding. The signs, already put in place,
which clearly inform the Museum's patrons of the discretionary
nature of their admission fee, are far less deceptive than the
previous signs, where the word "Recommended" was in small print.
This is particularly the case when taken together with the changes
on the website and the kiosks. Plaintiffs' counsel have done
substantial work identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and
settling the case, and they have substantial experience
prosecuting and settling class actions, and that the lawyers
assigned to the matter are well-versed in class action practice
and are well-qualified to represent the class. A review of ECBA's
billing records confirms that a $350,000 award is eminently
reasonable.

The parties' motion for final approval of the settlement is
granted in all respects except for the requested class
representative service awards, the two objections are overruled,
and the parties are directed to submit by e-filing and fax a
proposed order and judgment conforming with the decision within
two weeks of the entry of the order on NYSCEF.

A copy of Justice Kornreich's order dated June 15, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/EHrFyQ from Leagle.com.

Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, for the Saska Plaintiffs

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, for defendant

Hiller, PC, for the Grunewald Plaintiffs, as objectors

Anna St. John of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Center, for
Class Action Fairness, as objector


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Martinez" Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc.  The case is captioned as Daisy Martinez, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-01264-BTM-MDD (S.D. Cal., June 21, 2017). The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz.

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt
obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Veronica M. Aguilar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF VERONICA M. AGUILAR
          3591 Princeton Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92127
          Telephone: (858) 213 7853
          E-mail: veronica@vaguilarlaw.com


MONSANTO CO: Blitz et al. Sue over Roundup Pesticide in Wisconsin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the latest federal class action in Madison, Wis., against Monsanto
accuses it of falsely advertising that its Roundup pesticide does
not target the enzyme EPSP synthase, a vital gut bacteria in
humans and animals.

The case is captioned, THOMAS BLITZ, a Wisconsin consumer; KEVIN
BLAIR, an Illinois consumer; GREGORY CHICK, a California consumer;
MARIO WASHINGTON, a New York consumer; TERENCE D. MOORE, a New
Jersey consumer; and RICHARD J. DULNIAK, a Florida consumer, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation; and
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, an Ohio Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00473-wmc (W.D. Wisc., June 20, 2017).

Plaintiffs' counsel:

     Mary C. Turk, Esq.
     Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
     TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
     613 Williamson Street #209
     Madison, WI 53703
     Telephone: (608) 237-1775
     E-mail: mary@turkestrauss.com
             sam@turkestrauss.com

          - and -

     Kim E. Richman, Esq.
     RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     81 Prospect Street
     Brooklyn, New York
     Telephone: (212) 687-8291
     E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com

          - and -

     Michael L. Baum, Esq.
     R. Brent Wisner, Esq2.
     BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Telephone: (310) 207-3233
     E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlund.com
             bwisner@baumhedlund.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
     GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP
     2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste. 103
     Bronx, New York 10469
     Telephone: (718) 708-5322
     E-mail: michael@gabriellilaw.com

          - and -

     Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
     ANDRUS WAGSTAFF LLP
     7171 West Alaska Drive
     Lakewood, CO 80226
     Telephone: (720) 208-9414
     E-mail: aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Miller, Esq.
     MILLER FIRM LLC
     108 Railroad Avenue
     Orange, VA 22960
     Telephone: (540) 672-4224
     E-mail: mmiller@millerfirmllc.com

          - and -

     Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, New York 10003
     Telephone: (212) 558-5500
     E-mail: rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

          - and -

     Robert F. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP
     48 Dewitt Mills Road
     Hurley, New York 12443
     Telephone: (845) 481-2622


MONSANTO CO: Overstreet Sues over Roundup Pesticide in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action claims in Philadelphia, Monsanto falsely
advertises that its Roundup herbicide concentrate makes twice as
many gallons in proper dilution as it actually does.

The case is captioned, Michael Overstreet, Plaintiff, vs. Monsanto
Company, Defendant, Case No. 17-02740 (E.D. Pa., June 19, 2017).



Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Greg Prosmushkin, Esq.
     Greg Prosmushkin, P.C.
     9637 Bustleton Avenue
     Philadelphia, PA 191 15
     Tel: (215) 673-7733
     Fax: (215) 673-7733
     E-mail: office@gproslaw.com

          - and -

     Martin Jerisat, Esq.
     Jerisat Firm
     1600 N. Broadway St., Ste. 650
     Santa Ana, CA 92706
     Tel: (714) 571-5700
     Tel: (312) 332-0333
     Fax: (844) 362-6610

          - and -

     Aaron Rapier, Esq.
     Dario Dzananovic, Esq.
     Rapier Law Firm
     1770 Park St., Suite 200
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Tel: (815) 782-5478
     Fax: (815) 327-3449

          - and -

     S. Wade Yeoman, Esq.
     Corey Ann Finn, Esq.
     Caudill Finn & Yeoman
     231 S. Fifth Street, 3rd Floor
     Louisville, Kentucky 40202
     Tel: (502) 641-4765
     E-mail: corey@cfylawyers.com
             wade@cfylawyers.com


MRO CORPORATION: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr., of the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, Charleston, denied
defendant's motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration, in the
case captioned THOMAS M. WILSON SR., and DANIEL HALSEY as
ADMINISRATOR of the ESTATE OF TAMARA HALSEY, and JASON GRAZUTIES,
and SANDRA SHEPPARD, and ROBERT BRADLEY, and ARVADA MARTIN,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MRO CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, and
CIOX HEALTH, LLC, a Georgia Corporation, and MEDI-COPY SERVICES,
INC., a Tennessee Corporation, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:16-
5279 (S.D.W. Va.).

Plaintiffs Thomas M. Wilson, Sr., Daniel Halsey as Administrator
of the Estate of Tamara Halsey, and Jason Grazuties, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against MRO, Medi-Copy Services, Inc. and CIOX Health, LLC in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia on April 28, 2016.
With the consent of CIOX and MRO, Medi-Copy removed the action on
June 10, 2016 on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint to add Sandra
Sheppard, Robert Bradley, and Arvada Martin as additional class
representatives, which the court granted on October 7, 2016.
Plaintiffs brought the case as a class action on behalf of those
who are patients of health care providers, or designated
representatives of patients of health care providers, who
defendants charged an amount in excess of that allowed by law for
copies of medical records when they requested electronic medical
records be produced on electronic media, individually or through
another person acting on their behalf, from West Virginia
hospitals and other health care providers that contract with
defendants to produce medical records.

Count one alleges that defendants violated the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), W. Va. Code Section
46A-6-101 et seq., by charging fees in excess of a reasonable fee
for the production of medical records in electronic form. Count
two alleges that defendants violated the Health Care Records
Statute, W. Va. Code Section 16-29-2, by charging plaintiffs and
others in excess of their labor and supply costs for their
electronic medical records, resulting in fees that are not
reasonable. Plaintiffs ask for the matter to be certified as a
class action, award judgment in their favor, including injunctive
relief that prohibits excessive and unlawful charges, equitable
relief that includes restitution and disgorgement of moneys
obtained from overcharges, recovery of excess charges, civil
penalties for violations of the WVCCPA, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, costs, attorney's fees, statutory interest,
punitive damages, and all other relief the court deems
appropriate.

Defendant MRO Corporation filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. MRO concedes that it provides release of information
services to health care providers, which includes providing copies
of medical records upon a proper request to the health care
provider, but MRO argues that plaintiffs have failed to plead a
cognizable injury in fact and additionally contends that the
WVCCPA and Health Care Records Statute do not cover plaintiffs'
claims in part because their requests were made by their attorney,
so that they therefore lack standing to bring their claims,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).MRO also argues that there is
a valid, binding arbitration provision that covers the dispute so
that the court must compel arbitration of the matter.

Judge Copenhaver denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and to compel arbitration, reasoning that the amended
complaint sufficiently alleges that plaintiffs, acting through
their attorneys at Tiano O'Dell in requesting and paying for their
medical records, suffered an injury in fact that is concrete and
particularized and actual or imminent, whereby MRO overcharged
them for copies of their medical records in violation of West
Virginia law. The amended complaint also alleges a causal
connection between MRO's overcharging and the injury suffered by
plaintiffs. From the amended complaint it is additionally apparent
that it is likely that the economic injury suffered by plaintiffs
can be redressed by a favorable decision by the court. Moreover,
plaintiffs' claims are covered under the WVCCAP and Health Care
Records Statute. Accordingly, the amended complaint sufficiently
establishes plaintiffs' standing to bring the claims alleged in
the amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Copenhaver's memorandum opinion and order dated
June 15, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/dQtMek from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Cheryl A. Fisher, Esq.
     Tony L. O'Dell, Esq.
     William M. Tiano, Esq.
     TIANO & O'DELL
     118 Capitol St.
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Tel: 304-720-6700

MRO Corporation, Defendant, represented by Courtney Devon Taylor -
- ctaylor@schnader.com -- David Smith -- dsmith@schnader.com --
Keith E. Whitson -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- at SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS; Lori Streets Muldoon -- at PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN
BROWN & POE

CIOX Health, LLC, Defendant, represented by Devon J. Stewart --
devon.stewart@steptoe-johnson.com -- Russell D. Jessee --
russell.jessee@steptoe-johnson.com -- at STEPTOE & JOHNSON; Javier
Flores -- jflores@mgmlaw.com -- at MANION GAYNOR & MANNING

Medi-Copy Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lindsay M.
Gainer -- lgainer@kaycasto.com -- Robert Lee Bandy --
rbandy@kaycasto.com -- at KAY CASTO & CHANEY


NBTY INC: "Petkevicius" Disputes Gingko Biloba Health Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Petkevicius, Peter Ripley on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NBTY, Inc., Nature's Bounty,
Inc., Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01152
(S.D. Cal., June 6, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices resulting from
misleading labeling and marketing; restitution to restore to all
affected persons all funds acquired; disgorgement of all monies
wrongfully obtained; damages and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and for violation of the
California Consumers Legal Remedy Act, California Unfair
Competition Law, New York's General Business Law and New York's
Express Warranty Law.

NBTY sells vitamins, minerals, herbs, specialty supplements, and
sports/active nutrition products including their Ginkgo Biloba
supplements which they claim to help enhance brain activity.
However, Plaintiff claims that there is no scientific evidence
that proves that the ginkgo biloba products have any efficacy or
are effective in the improvement of cognitive health related to
increasing memory and healthy functioning of consumers' brains.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 756-6994
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

             - and -

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Allison R. Willett, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (888) 835-8055
      Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
      Email: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
             awillett@milsteinadelman.com


NBTY INC: Dachauer Appeals From N.D. Cal. Order to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Paul Dachauer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Paul Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-00216-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks restitution, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs
for alleged violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  The
Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's Vitamin E 1000 IU at a Rite-
Aid in San Rafael, California, enticed by their health benefit
representations as advertised.  The Defendants allegedly do not
have substantial evidence to back up their health benefits claims,
says the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Paul Dachauer v. NBTY, Inc., et
al., Case No. 17-16242, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 17, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on August 14, 2017;

   -- Appellant Paul Dachauer's opening brief is due on
      September 25, 2017;

   -- Appellees NBTY, Inc. and Nature's Bounty, Inc.'s answering
      brief is due on October 23, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL DACHAUER, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6978
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Laura Mummert, Esq.
          Brian Penny, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: mummert@lawgsp.com
                  bpenny@labaton.com

               - and -

          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 300-5505
          E-mail: mstein@boodlaw.com

               - and -

          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          SIPRUT, PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          E-mail: sweltman@siprut.com

Defendants-Appellees NBTY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
NATURE'S BOUNTY, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Robert Andalman, Esq.
          A & G LAW LLC
          542 S. Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (312) 341-3900
          E-mail: randalman@aandglaw.com

               - and -

          William A. Delgado, Esq.
          WILLENKEN WILSON LOH & DELGADO, LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 955-9240
          Facsimile: (213) 955-9250
          E-mail: wdelgado@willenken.com


NEW YORK: Penn Station Commuters File Lawsuit Against MTA, LIRR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Balsamini, writing New York Post, reports for report fed-up
Penn Station commuters facing a "summer of hell" launched the
first class-action lawsuit against the MTA, Long Island Rail Road
and NYC Transit on June 10 over the chaos, cancellations and
delays at the nation's busiest rail hub.

"We want the word out," a furious Meredith Jacobs, one of two
plaintiffs in the suit, told The Post. "We want change,
accountability, visibility and, quite frankly, we want what we pay
for -- and if we don't get it, we want our money back!"

Jacobs, 48, of Wantagh, LI, has been commuting to Manhattan for 24
years. The sales executive coughs up $297 a month for the
privilege of riding the rickety rails.

"This has been going on for four years, but the last two have been
really bad. We got two fare increases in two years, and service is
at an all-time low," she said.

Uniondale, LI, resident Fred Lee, 31, is the other named plaintiff
in the action.

The suit charges infliction of emotional distress, negligence and
breach of "contract of carriage."

Aside from the two named plaintiffs, it is being brought on
"behalf of . . . .  all other individuals who regularly ride the
Long Island Rail Road," according to papers filed on June 10 in
Nassau County Supreme Court.

"There are thousands of commuters who want to join this suit" and
once the court "certifies the action, everybody can join in," said
Manhattan attorney and Long Island resident Paul Liggieri, who
filed the suit.

"Penn Station is a mess, and we hope this lawsuit is the first
step in cleaning it up," he said.

Amtrak owns the troubled tracks at Penn Station, a hub for NJ
Transit and LIRR railroads serving more than 600,000 daily weekday
riders.

The legal salvo came a day after NJTransit released its summer
game plan to deal with Amtrak's overhaul of the dilapidated rails
in and around Penn Station.

The MTA, which operates the LIRR and NYC Transit, had hoped to
unveil its pain remedy by June 1 but has yet to offer a light at
the end of the tunnel to Long Island riders.

'While the MTA LIRR cries foul and passes blame onto Amtrak, the
MTA LIRR has done absolutely nothing to improve railroad and
safety conditions for passengers to whom they owe a duty of
reasonable care.'

Starting next month, construction will take place every day of the
week, with some tracks out of service 24/7, Amtrak has said.
Sources said Amtrak would take on only four of the station's 21
tracks at a time, but the company would not "make any guarantees
about disruptions."

The need for the overhaul became clear after two slow-speed
derailments on Penn Station tracks in late March and early April.
The MTA blamed Amtrak for a "series of unacceptable infrastructure
failures" in the accidents that caused chaos for tens of thousands
of riders.

"The increasing frequency of these failures leaves the clear
impression that Amtrak is not aggressively maintaining its track,
switches and related equipment at Penn Station and that repairs
have not happened as swiftly as needed," MTA execs wrote in a
letter to Amtrak.

The two-page letter noted "four equipment failures and accidents
that have resulted in major delays" on Amtrak-owned tracks used by
the commuter trains.

But the plaintiffs are weary of the blame game.

"While the MTA LIRR cries foul and passes blame onto Amtrak, the
MTA LIRR has done absolutely nothing to improve railroad and
safety conditions for passengers to whom they owe a duty of
reasonable care," their suit charges.

The suit also takes on NYC Transit, because the Penn Station mess
has LIRR riders "spilling onto the 2, 3, and A, C, E," Liggieri
said.

The suit points to the Penn Station nightmare of May 10, when LIRR
commuters were "subjected to catastrophic service disruptions" as
nearly 80 trains were scrapped during the height of the evening
rush, leaving thousands stranded.

"The cancellations not only disrupted passengers' travel plans,
they also became the catalyst for dangerous overcrowding at Penn
Station, on the train platforms, and onboard the few trains still
running," the suit says, noting that the fiasco came after "two
days of widespread cancellations."

The complaint alleges that delays and cancellations have resulted
in:

Dangerous overcrowding on trains and platforms, where commuters
are forced to stand "on the very edge . . . mere inches away from
incoming trains." Some have complained that "they have almost
fallen onto the train tracks."

Riders relegated to "standing shoulder-to-shoulder amongst dozens
of other riders packed into the middle of the train car's
vestibule."

"Begrudged" passengers forced to stand "in the train car's
unsanitary and untreated bathrooms. The floors of these bathroom
areas are consistently covered in visible layers of urine and the
toilets are regularly overflowing with human waste."

Riders suffering everything from "discipline at work, loss of job
interviews, loss of enjoyment of life" to "physical and emotional
distress" due to chronic delays.

The suit says the outrageous conditions "should not be tolerated
in a civilized society."

It points to a study that said cancellations and delays on LIRR
trains are worse than they have been in a decade.

And while NJ Transit and the LIRR have blamed Amtrak for many of
the delays, an analysis by The Wall Street Journal found that Penn
Station infrastructure issues were responsible for only 21 percent
of the 10,000 trains that were canceled or delayed through the
first five months of this year.

NJ Transit tells Penn Station commuters they're screwed
Gov. Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for Amtrak to
cede control of Penn Station to a private management firm and
blamed it for allowing conditions at the hub to go "from bad to
worse to intolerable."

Cuomo said last month that the impending track repairs at Penn
Station would mean a "summer of hell" for commuters.

The suit seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of monthly LIRR train passes for May.

Liggieri could not estimate the number of passes involved, but
said, "We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars."

"In New York, common carriers owe a duty to provide reasonable
'comfort and safety' in delivering passengers to their
destinations without reasonable delay or detention," the suit
says, citing case law.

"The LIRR has unquestionably breached the duty of care owed to
passengers by forcing them to ride trains in dangerous and
unsanitary conditions," the suit says. [GN]


NEXTEP FUNDING: Prayitno's Cert. Bid Cont'd; Hearing on July 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on June 13, 2017, in the case titled
Chan-Li Prayitno v. Nextep Funding, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04310
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge
L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's motion
      for class certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to July 12, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.; and

   -- Initial status hearing is set for July 12, 2017, at 9:30
      a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AnZJrHOK


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Cotton" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is entitled as Brandy Cotton, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northland
Group Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00157-DPM (E.D. Ark., June 19, 2017). The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge D. P. Marshall Jr.[BN]

Northland Group provides accounts receivable management and
collection services to national credit grantors, debt buyers, and
student loan lenders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (845) 367 7146
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


NRA GROUP: Faces "Merabishvili" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The
case is captioned as Giorgi Merabishvili, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRA Group, LLC,
also known as: National Recovery Agency, Inc. a/k/a National
Recovery Agency, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03716
(E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2017).

NRA is an accounts receivable management company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


OREGON LOTTERY: Appeals Court Rejects "Curzi" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Mccann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
man who claimed the Oregon Lottery's video poker machines were
rigged didn't produce a viable class action in Salem, Ore., the
state appeals court held.

Plaintiff Justin Curzi sued the Oregon Lottery and three companies
that make its video poker machines in December 2014, seeking class
action status and $134 million in damages.  He claimed the video
poker machines' "auto-hold" feature misleads players about how to
increase their odds of winning a hand.

The auto-hold feature recommends playing strategies, and allows
players to automatically discard and draw new cards with a single
button, according to the complaint filed in Multnomah County
Circuit Court.

"[R]elying on the auto-hold feature is the easiest and fastest way
to play video poker, and the player must actively elect not to
rely on the auto-hold feature in order to avoid following its
recommended strategies," Curzi claimed.

Both the lottery and the manufacturers moved to dismiss, arguing
that Curzi didn't raise any viable tort claims against them.

Finding that Curzi did not file his tort claim against the Lottery
within the required time frame, State Court Judge Judith Matarazzo
dismissed all of his claims with prejudice.

On appeal, Curzi took issue with the state court's
characterization of what he knew and when.

Prior to filing the lawsuit, Curzi had sought information about
the auto-hold feature. In February 2014, the Lottery responded to
Curzi, telling him that the feature does not necessarily recommend
optimal playing strategies.

"The strategy to get to a winning hand is programmed by the
terminal manufacturer, not the Oregon Lottery. In your case, the
terminal did advise a strategy -- granted not the only strategy --
for you to have an opportunity to win with the cards you were
dealt," a representative of the Lottery wrote Curzi in an email.

But Curzi couldn't prove that the Lottery had engaged in any sort
of ongoing wrongdoing, an appellate court panel held on June 14.

"The Lottery's alleged wrongful conduct is substantially different
from a continuing tort where either no single act gives rise to
the tort claim or the plaintiff's harm can be determined only at
the end of a series of alleged wrongful acts based on the
cumulative effect of the wrongful behavior," Judge Scott Shorr
wrote in the panel's 20-page opinion.

The panel also upheld the state court's dismissal of Curzi's
unjust enrichment claim and rejected his argument that the state
waived sovereign immunity.

However, the lower court should not have granted prevailing party
fees to the poker machine manufacturers, IGT Inc., GTech Canada
ULC and WMS Gaming Inc., the panel held.

Because Curzi filed a class action, the companies could not
recover those fees, even though the lawsuit was never certified as
such, Shorr wrote.

Curzi's attorney Jay Zollinger declined to comment, saying he was
evaluating options.

Attorneys for the Oregon Lottery and the poker machine
manufacturers did not respond to emailed requests for comment by
press time.


PAYSON PETROLEUM: Financial West Moves "Moore" Suit to N.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Financial West Group and Gene Charles Valentine removed
the lawsuit entitled Moore et al. v. Payson Petroleum Grayson LLC,
et al., Case No. DC-17-02213, from the 162nd Judicial District,
Dallas County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) on May 31, 2017.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-01436-M-BH to the proceeding.

Payson Petroleum Grayson, LLC, filed as a Domestic Limited
Liability Company in the state of Texas on November 8, 2012.[BN]

Plaintiffs Martin William Prinz, Tim Moore, David Vednor, Roland
Lentz, James Rosemeyer, Virginia Humphrey, William Martin, and
Jeff Wilshire, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
          L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: dean@stecklerlaw.com
                  bruce@stecklerlaw.com
                  krogers@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10116
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com

Defendant Dan Nichter is represented by:

          Kevin P. Perkins, Esq.
          VANACOUR PERKINS PLLC
          14675 Midway Road, Suite 100
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (844) 413-2299
          E-mail: kperkins@vanacourperkins.com

Defendants Financial West Group and Gene Charles Valentine are
represented by:

          David B. Winter, Esq.
          Brad E. Brewer, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          901 Main Street, Suite 4000
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 742-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 760-8994
          E-mail: dwinter@zelle.com
                  bbrewer@zelle.com

Defendants Terry Dewayne Harvey, Plano Capital Group LLC and PTX
Securities LLC are represented by:

          David B. Dyer, Esq.
          Charlene Cantrell Koonce, Esq.
          SCHEEF & STONE LLP
          500 N Akard, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 706-4204
          Facsimile: (214) 706-4242
          E-mail: david.dyer@solidcounsel.com
                  charlene.koonce@solidcounsel.com


PERRIGO CO: New Jersey Securities Litigation Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities lawsuit against Perrigo Company is
ongking, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on May 22,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2016.

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the
Company and former CEO Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et
al.).  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders
for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016,
inclusive.  The complaint alleges violations of Securities
Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against both
defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa.
In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015.  The plaintiff also alleges that the Company
provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration
problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April
21, 2015 through May 11, 2016.  The case is in an early stage.

On July 19, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities class action
against the Company and Mr. Papa, in the District of New Jersey
(Wilson v. Papa, et al.).  The plaintiff purports to represent a
class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares
between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016.

In general, the allegations and the claims are the same as those
made in the Roofers' Pension Fund case.

Subsequently, the Wilson plaintiff filed papers in the Roofers'
Pension Fund case as one of four candidates seeking to be named
lead plaintiff or co-lead plaintiff in that case.  This
shareholder also filed a motion to have the Wilson case
consolidated with the Roofers' Pension Fund case.

On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated Roofers' Pension Fund
case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case
number.

In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs and the
lead counsel to the putative class.

In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order that sets a
deadline for the lead plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
That deadline has not yet passed.

Perrigo Company plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes over-the-counter (OTC)
consumer goods and pharmaceutical products worldwide.  The Company
offers its products through retail drug, supermarket, mass
merchandise chains, wholesalers, pharmacies, drug and grocery
stores, para pharmacies, and hospitals, as well as through a
network of pharmacy sales force and pharmacists in North America,
Europe, Australia, Israel, China, and Latin America.  Perrigo
Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: Tel Aviv-Jaffa Securities Class Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action filed in the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Perrigo Company plc, among other defendants, is
still stayed, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on May
22, 2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2016.

On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action
against the Company and five individual defendants: the Company's
former CEO Joseph Papa, the Company's former Executive Vice
President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and the
Company's Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas
alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel
Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.).

On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending
the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New
Jersey federal court.  The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the
action is stayed.

Perrigo Company plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes over-the-counter (OTC)
consumer goods and pharmaceutical products worldwide.  The Company
offers its products through retail drug, supermarket, mass
merchandise chains, wholesalers, pharmacies, drug and grocery
stores, para pharmacies, and hospitals, as well as through a
network of pharmacy sales force and pharmacists in North America,
Europe, Australia, Israel, China, and Latin America.  Perrigo
Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


PERRIGO CO: In Mediation with Parties to Settle Eltroxin Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc disclosed in its Form 10-K filed on May 22,
2017 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2016 that the parties in an Eltroxin-related
consolidated class action suit are currently engaged in mediation
in an attempt to settle the matter.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by the
Company's subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.

The respondents included the Company's subsidiaries, Perrigo
Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd.,
the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers
who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory
healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight
applications were consolidated into one application.  The
applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version
of Eltroxin in Israel.  The consolidated application generally
alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.

As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages:
(a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made
by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application took place in December 2013 and January 2014.

On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against
Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the
remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals
Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, Perrigo submitted a motion for permission to
appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court
together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action
until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated.  Perrigo
has filed its statement of defense to the underlying proceedings.

The parties are currently engaged in mediation in an attempt to
settle the matter.  The underlying proceedings have been stayed
pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a
decision on the motion to appeal.

Perrigo Company plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes over-the-counter (OTC)
consumer goods and pharmaceutical products worldwide.  The Company
offers its products through retail drug, supermarket, mass
merchandise chains, wholesalers, pharmacies, drug and grocery
stores, para pharmacies, and hospitals, as well as through a
network of pharmacy sales force and pharmacists in North America,
Europe, Australia, Israel, China, and Latin America.  Perrigo
Company plc was founded in 1887 and is headquartered in Dublin,
Ireland.


PFIZER: Consolidated Cholesterol Drug Cases Lack Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thaddeus Ewald, Esq., and Kristin Ann Shepard, Esq., at Carlton
Fields, in an article for JD Supra, reported that the Central
District of California district court recently weighed in on the
limits of mass action jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA). The matter began as various individual state court
actions alleging that a cholesterol medication caused women taking
the drug to suffer from Type II diabetes; after the state court
granted a request for "coordination" of the cases, defendant
pharmaceutical company removed the cases to federal court based on
CAFA's mass action provision. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing
that the case did not satisfy the requirements for mass action
jurisdiction -- namely, claims of 100 or more persons for monetary
relief, and proposed to be tried jointly for resolution of common
questions.

First, the district court agreed with the defendant that the
plaintiffs' submissions constituted proposals for a joint trial
under CAFA's mass action provision. It analyzed the plaintiffs'
petitions which, taken together, evidenced a request and a need
for coordination beyond merely pre-trial proceedings.
Specifically, plaintiffs had requested coordination "for all
purposes" and their various submissions all alleged the need to
avoid duplicative judgments and rulings on liability issues. Thus,
even though plaintiffs' coordinated counsel indicated at a status
conference the primary concern of consolidation was discovery, the
court held the plaintiffs to the language of the petition
indicating the request for coordination was not limited to
pretrial matters.

Second, the court nonetheless found CAFA mass action jurisdiction
inappropriate because there were not 100 plaintiffs proposing
joint trial. Under Ninth Circuit law, the court highlighted, there
is no strict rule specifying who exactly must make a proposal for
joint trial sufficient to trigger mass action jurisdiction, except
that a defendant's proposal is insufficient and that implicit
proposals may be sufficient so long as they are "voluntary and
affirmative" or "intentional" acts. Here, only 65 plaintiffs had
undertaken sufficiently voluntary and affirmative acts to propose
a joint trial, either by being named in the amended coordination
petition or by filing add-on petitions. Despite the possibility of
hundreds or thousands of new plaintiffs adding on to the petition
and plaintiffs' counsels' predictions they would do so, the court
found those facts insufficient to satisfy the mass action
provision's 100+ plaintiff requirement. It held that the mere
possibility of more coordination and future plaintiffs did not and
could not constitute actual proposals for joint trials.

Accordingly, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
cases to state court, finding CAFA mass action jurisdiction
lacking where there were fewer than 100 plaintiffs proposing joint
trial.

In re: Pfizer, Case No. 17-00005 (C.D. Cal. May 23, 2017) [GN]


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Appeal from Securities Case Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. is awaiting the court's ruling on a pending
appeal related to the dismissal of a federal securities class
suit, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2017.

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
by a Company shareholder on behalf of the remaining shareholders
(other than the defendants) against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

After the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014.  The
amended complaint, which is substantially similar to the
litigation captioned Ahmed D. Hussein v. Sheldon Razin, Steven
Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does 1-10, inclusive, No. 30-
2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, generally alleges that statements made to
the Company's shareholders regarding its financial condition and
projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 20, 2014, which the Court granted on October 20, 2014,
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the Court
denied on January 5, 2015.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.

Plaintiffs filed their opening brief and the Company answered.
Oral argument was held on December 5, 2016.  The Court's decision
remains pending.

The Company said, "We believe that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit and continue to defend against them vigorously.  At
this time, we are unable to estimate the probability or the amount
of liability, if any, related to this claim."

Quality Systems, Inc. manufactures and supplies concrete
resurfacing products and acrylic sealers to residential and
commercial customers in the United States and internationally.  It
serves customers through a network of dealers.  Quality Systems,
Inc. was founded in 1990 and is based in Nashville, Tennessee.


SANTA FE NATURAL: Judge Hears Arguments on Cigarette Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Terrell, writing for The New Mexican, reports that lawyers
pursuing a federal class action against the makers of Natural
American Spirit cigarettes argued on June 9 that the company
purposefully--and effectively--deceives customers into thinking
their popular brand is safer and healthier than other smokes.

But at a hearing before U.S. District Judge James Browning,
lawyers for Santa Fe Natural Tobacco, the company responsible for
Natural American Spirit, countered that disclaimers on the
cigarette packs and in print advertising show the company is not
trying to mislead the "reasonable consumer."

The disclaimer on the pack says, "No additives in our tobacco does
NOT mean a safer cigarette." The message on print ads says
"Organic tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette." Those warnings
are the result of a consent order with the Federal Trade
Commission in 2000.

The company is asking the judge to dismiss the lawsuit,
consolidated from multiple complaints filed by a variety of
plaintiffs in several states. After hearing more than four hours
of arguments on June 9, Browning scheduled another hearing for
Aug. 1. The case is expected to go on for years.

The high-stakes court battle is the latest clash over what started
in 1982 as a niche brand created by four Santa Fe investors and
later grew into a top-selling premium cigarette after tobacco
giant Reynolds American Inc. of Winston-Salem, N.C., bought Santa
Fe Natural in 2002 for $340 million. Two years ago, a Japanese
company paid $5 billion for overseas rights to Natural American
Spirit.

As the brand grew in popularity, health advocates, regulators and
others ratcheted up long-running criticisms that terms like
"organic," "natural" and "additive free," combined with Native
American imagery, fool buyers into thinking the company's
cigarettes are less damaging to their health. Now dozens of
lawyers representing consumers are asserting those claims through
litigation.

Minneapolis lawyer Melissa Wolchansky told Browning the printed
disclaimers are not effective. "We represent 12 plaintiffs who
purchased American Spirits thinking they were healthier," she
said. She argued that the entire package design -- a logo
featuring an American Indian in a feathered headdress holding a
peace pipe, the stylized eagle at the top of the American Spirit
pack, and the text on the bottom saying "100 percent additive free
tobacco" -- is meant to distract a consumer from the dangers of
tobacco. She also said the word "Natural" in the brand's name is
itself misleading.

"This is not baby food," she said, "it's a poisonous and lethal
product."

But Andrew Schultz, an Albuquerque lawyer for the defendants
argued that "reasonable consumers" would read all of the
packaging. He said it is obvious that "natural" does not mean that
cigarettes don't go through some kind of manufacturing process.

An agreement between the Food and Drug Administration and the
cigarette maker would require the company to remove the terms
"additive-free" and "natural" from its product labels, advertising
and promotional materials. But the company still would be
permitted to continue to keep the word "natural" as part of its
brand name.

Numerous studies, Wolchansky said, show that consumers associate
by overwhelming percentages words like "natural" and "organic"
with products that are good for your health. She pointed out that
the disclaimer on the side of the cigarette pack is much smaller
than the messages on the front.

A June 7 letter in support of the plaintiffs from several medical
and health organizations referred to a study conducted by the
Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at
Truth Initiative. That study, published last year, showed that
nearly 64 percent of Natural American Spirit smokers "inaccurately
believe such cigarettes are less harmful, compared to only 8.3
percent of smokers of other brands who believe that their
cigarettes are less harmful."

Organizations signing that letter were the American Academy of
Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the
American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the Truth Initiative.

The false idea that American Spirit is a healthier cigarette,
Wolchansky argued, is why that brand has grown while other brands
are losing customers.

The two sides spent much of the time on June 9 arguing about
American Spirit's menthol cigarettes. Menthol is a synthetic
chemical made from mint plants. Even though the menthol packs also
say "additive free," Wolchansky and Fort Lauderdale, Fla., lawyer
Scott Schlesinger, also representing the plaintiffs, said menthol
obviously is an additive.

Schultz, the company lawyer, said menthol is listed as an
ingredient and that customers buying menthol cigarettes know what
they're getting because they want the menthol added. He argued
that tobacco is one ingredient while menthol, which is in the
filter of the cigarettes, is another.

Schlesinger told the judge that in the company's early years
American Spirit ads said Native Americans used tobacco without
getting lung cancer.

These ads came up in the late 1990s when then-state Attorney
General Tom Udall, now a U.S. senator, was suing cigarette
companies, including Santa Fe Natural Tobacco.

"They try and make the cigarettes seem natural by selling them in
health food stores," said former Attorney General Paul Bardacke,
who as a private lawyer was a co-counsel for the state in that
case. "There is no doubt that Santa Fe Natural Tobacco has
marketed its product fraudulently and deceptively."

Bardacke at a 1998 court hearing said the company's mail-order
marketing had included literature featuring testimonials from
customers claiming the cigarettes helped them quit smoking. It
sent customers survey results that said most American Spirit
customers smoke less than when they used their old brand, some as
much as 50 percent to 70 percent less.

Another document sent to customers had statements from a man the
literature called "America's leading Natural Foods teacher," who
said, "For centuries the North American Indians have smoked
tobacco without developing cancer, and have utilized the plant for
many medicinal purposes."

Bardacke at the 1998 hearing called such marketing "as subtle and
pernicious if not more so than that used by the major [tobacco]
manufacturers." [GN]


SEARS BRAND: Abante Sues Over Auto-dialed Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sears Brand, LLC (d/b/a
Sears Home Improvement, Sears Home Services), Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-03312 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to call
Plaintiff offering its window replacement services and continued
to do so despite their request to cease its telephone calls. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Yana Hart, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             yana@westcoastlitigation.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Still Defends Labor Class Lawsuits at Apr. 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended April 29, 2017 that it is a defendant in several
class lawsuits related to labor law violations and business
practices.

Specifically, the Company is a defendant in several lawsuits
containing class or collective action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried associates
who allege violations of various wage and hour laws, rules and
regulations pertaining to alleged misclassification of certain of
the Company's employees, the failure to pay overtime and/or the
failure to pay for missed meal and rest periods and other payroll
violations.  The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief, or both.  Further, certain of these
proceedings are in jurisdictions with reputations for aggressive
application of laws and procedures against corporate defendants.

The Company is also a defendant in several putative or certified
class action lawsuits in California relating to alleged failure to
comply with California laws pertaining to certain operational,
marketing, and pricing practices.  The California laws alleged to
have been violated in each of these lawsuits provide the potential
for significant statutory penalties.

The Company said, "At this time, the Company is not able to either
predict the outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a
potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuits."

Sears Holdings Corporation operates as an integrated retailer in
the United States.  It operates in two segments, Kmart and Sears
Domestic. The Company was founded in 1899 and is based in Hoffman
Estates, Illinois.


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Faces "Clarke" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donovan J. Clarke, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No. 2:17-cv-03270-JMA-ARL
(E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Selip & Stylianou, LLP, headquartered in Woodbury, New York,
operates as a law firm.  The Firm provides creditor's rights
litigation and consulting services.[BN]

Plaintiff Donovan J. Clarke, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Magana Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MAGDALENO BIBIAN MAGANA, on
behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated v. SHORE
CONSTRUCTION, LLC and KRISTI CATON, Case No. 2:17-cv-01896-NJB-KWR
(E.D. La.), moves for conditional class certification, judicial
notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential
"opt-in" plaintiffs.

The action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or
practice" pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hjrYb79a

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com
                  whbeaumont@gmail.com
                  eaw@beaumontcostales.com


SIRIUS XM: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Flo & Eddie Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sirius XM Radio Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
relating to the lawsuit titled Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-05693-PSG-GJS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 16,
2017, F&E and SiriusXM settled the case in November 2016 on the
eve of the trial, with SiriusXM agreeing to pay almost $100
million in past and future royalties, subject to reduction pending
the outcome of the cases on appeal in New York, Florida and
California (with respect to Pandora).  The settlement amount and
SiriusXM's exposure have already been reduced once to reflect the
favorable resolution of the New York lawsuit by the Second Circuit
in February 2017.  Judge Gutierrez approved the revised class
action settlement on May 8, 2017.

The appellate case is captioned as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM
Radio Inc., Case No. 17-55844, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 22, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 14, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on October 12, 2017;

   -- Appellant Sirius XM Radio Inc.'s opening brief is due on
      November 21, 2017;

   -- Appellee Flo & Eddie, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      December 21, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Rachel S. Black, Esq.
          Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1201 Third Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 516-3899
          E-mail: rblack@susmangodfrey.com
                  smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Kalpana Srinivasan, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Henry D. Gradstein, Esq.
          Maryann Rose Marzano, Esq.
          GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.
          6310 San Vicente Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 776-3100
          Facsimile: (323) 931-4990
          E-mail: hgradstein@gradstein.com
                  mmarzano@gradstein.com

Defendant-Appellant SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., a Delaware corporation,
is represented by:

          Daniel Petrocelli, Esq.
          Cassandra Seto, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6035
          Telephone: (310) 246-6850
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: dpetrocelli@omm.com
          E-mail: cseto@omm.com


SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY: Settles Arkansas Class Action Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Energy Company has entered into a settlement
agreement in a class action litigation pending in Arkansas,
according to the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2017.

On May 18, Southwestern Energy Company and certain of its
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") entered into an
agreement to settle class action litigation filed on behalf of
lessors under leases of oil and gas in Arkansas regarding the
amount of deductions a Company subsidiary has made for gathering,
treatment and other costs in calculating royalty payments to the
lessors.  The agreement was reached in connection with the case
pending in the Circuit Court of Conway County, Arkansas (the
"Arkansas Court") under the caption Snow et al. v. SEECO, Inc.,
No. CV-2010-126.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay
US$30 million upon final court approval of the settlement.  The
Company's production subsidiary also agrees, for a period of 20
years, to calculate deductions for gathering costs incurred with
an affiliate at no more than the rate charged by the affiliate
minus 4.3 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas.  The Company and
its affiliates will be released from claims relating to all past
royalty calculations for affected leases, including deductions for
gathering, treatment and other costs, such as gathering charges
incurred with an affiliate.  The settlement also validates future
deductions calculated in accordance with the terms of the
settlement.  The class for the settlement includes substantially
all persons having leases with the Company in Arkansas that permit
deductions for various costs.  The agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing, which the Company continues to deny.

The proposed settlement has received preliminary approval from the
Arkansas Court and is subject to its final approval.  The hearing
for final approval is scheduled for June 28, 2017.

In addition, the Company has the right to terminate the settlement
agreement if more than a specified portion of class members elect
to opt out of the settlement or if certain other events occur.

Southwestern Energy Company, an independent natural gas and oil
company, engages in the exploration, development, and production
of natural gas and oil in the United States.  It operates through
two segments, Exploration and Production, and Midstream Services.
Southwestern Energy Company was founded in 1929 and is based in
Spring, Texas.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Appeal over Remand of PERS of MS Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants' appeal
of the Court order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand the case,
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc., remains pending.

On March 4, 2016, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi filed a putative securities class action against
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. ("SFM"), several SFM directors
(including Andrew Jhawar, an Apollo partner), AP Sprouts Holdings,
LLC and AP Sprouts Holdings (Overseas), L.P. (the "AP Entities"),
which are controlled by entities managed by Apollo affiliates, and
two underwriters of a March 2015 secondary offering of SFM common
stock. The AP Entities sold SFM common stock in the March 2015
secondary offering.

The complaint, filed in Arizona Superior Court and captioned
Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Sprouts
Farmers Market, Inc. (CV2016-050480), alleges that SFM filed a
materially misleading registration statement for the secondary
offering that incorporated alleged misrepresentations in SFM's
2014 annual report regarding SFM's business prospects, and failed
to disclose alleged accelerating produce deflation. The two causes
of action against the AP Entities are for alleged violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages for alleged losses
sustained from a decline in SFM's stock price.

Defendants removed the case to United States District Court for
the District of Arizona, but on March 27, 2017, the Court granted
Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court.

Defendants filed a notice of appeal on April 21, 2017.

Meanwhile, the state court ordered the following briefing schedule
for motions to dismiss:  (1) Defendants' motions are due by May
25, 2017; (2) Plaintiff's opposition is due by June 26, 2017; and
(3) Defendants' replies are due by July 14, 2017.  Because this
action is in its early stages, no reasonable estimate of possible
loss, if any, can be made at this time.

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a global alternative investment
manager whose predecessor was founded in 1990. Its primary
business is to raise, invest and manage private equity, credit and
real estate funds as well as strategic investment accounts, on
behalf of pension, endowment and sovereign wealth funds, as well
as other institutional and individual investors.


STATE FARM: Insurers Cheat Builders, Bob Porto Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik De la Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an Arkansas builder filed class-action lawsuits accusing four
insurance companies of routinely passing over reputable
construction firms for unlicensed ones that ignore building codes
to pocket money on payouts at the expense of policyholders.

Bob Porto, owner of Bob Porto Builders in Little Rock, filed four
separate class actions on June 6, in Pulaski County Circuit Court
against State Farm & Casualty Company, Allstate Property and
Casualty Company, Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Arkansas
and Safeco Insurance Company of America.

Porto claims in each lawsuit that he and other area builders began
losing roofing jobs in January 2016 because of the insurance
companies' policy of approving the lowest bidder, despite knowing
they have no intention of following building codes.

According to his class actions, all four insurance companies are
"completely aware that the lower bidders are not going to replace
the roofs within code."

"As a result, roofers licensed by the Arkansas Contractors
Licensing Board, such as plaintiff, are damaged," his June 6
lawsuits say.

Porto says he has 20 years of experience in the new home
construction business, and more recently has been focused on
replacing roofs damaged by storms.  He seeks actual and punitive
damages for deceptive trade practices and a declaration finding it
unlawful for the insurance companies to ignore building codes,
refuse bids of licensed roofers taking into account Arkansas's
building codes, and cause their policyholders to repair or replace
their roofs in violation of codes.

The class actions also request an injunction requiring the
insurance companies to accept only detailed roofing bids from
licensed contractors who provide estimates that correlate to
applicable building codes.

Porter is represented in all four class actions by Scott Poynter
of Little Rock.

State Farm and Farm Bureau did not immediately respond to email
request for comment on June 8.  Allstate and Safeco could not be
reached for comment.

The suit against State Farm is styled as, BOB PORTO, D/B/A BOB
PORTO BUILDERS, for Himself and All Other Arkansans Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 60CV-17-2817, Pulaski County Circuit Court, Arkansas,
filed June 6, 2017.

The suit against Allstate is styled as, BOB PORTO, D/B/A BOB PORTO
BUILDERS, for Himself and All Other Arkansans Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 60CV-17-2804, Pulaski County Circuit Court,
Arkansas, filed June 6, 2017.

The suit against Farm Bureau is styled as, BOB PORTO, D/B/A BOB
PORTO BUILDERS, for Himself and All Other Arkansans Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 60CV-17-2803, Pulaski County Circuit
Court, Arkansas, filed June 6, 2017.

The suit against Safeco is styled as, BOB PORTO, D/B/A BOB PORTO
BUILDERS, for Himself and All Other Arkansans Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 60CV-17-2804, Pulaski County Circuit Court, Arkansas, filed
June 6, 2017.

Plaintiff's counsel:

     Scott Poynter, Esq.
     POYNTER LAW GROUP
     400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2910
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501) 251-1587
     E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com


STATE FARM: "Castenada" Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aaron Castenada, and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 04cv-17-00054, was removed on
June 16, 2017 from the Circuit Court of Benton County, Arkansas,
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-
cv-05105-PKH to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge P. K. Holmes, III.

State Farm is a group of insurance and financial services
companies in the United States. The group's main business is State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a mutual insurance firm
that also owns the other State Farm companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Gene Hortonm, Esq.
          NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, PA
          5434 Walsh Lane
          Rogers, AR 72758
          P.O. Box 184
          Fort Smith, AR 72902
          Telephone: (479) 464 8269
          Facsimile: (479) 782 5184
          E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John E. Moore, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374 6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374 5906
          E-mail: john.moore@mrmblaw.com


SUNBEAM CONSUMER: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. SUNBEAM CONSUMER
PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00969-VLB (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   -- taking the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
      submission and deferring further activity on it until after
      the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming
      scheduling order under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure, or alternatively; and

   -- granting the Motion for class certification pursuant to
      Rule 23.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hJAtQ6mt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SUPERCOM LTD: Still Defends Consolidated Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
SuperCom Ltd. continues to defend itself in a consolidated class
action lawsuit related to alleged misleading projections in 2015,
according to the Company's Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 25, 2017.

The Company said, "In August 2016, three claims previously filed
against the Company and a number of defendants affiliated with the
Company were consolidated into a class action lawsuit.  The claims
assert causes of action based on alleged false and misleading
projections made by the Company in 2015.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages.  The Company believes that the
claim has no merits and that the probability of the legal
proceeding resulting in an unfavorable outcome to the Company is
remote."

SuperCom Ltd. provides identity, machine-to-machine, cyber
security device, payment, and connectivity products and solutions
to governments, and private and public organizations worldwide.
The Company sells its systems and products through local
representatives, subsidiaries, and distribution channels, as well
as independent representatives and resellers.  The Company was
formerly known as Vuance Ltd. and changed its name to SuperCom
Ltd. in January 2013.  SuperCom Ltd. was founded in 1988 and is
based in Herzliya, Israel.


SYMANTEC CORP: Appeal from Settlement Approval Order Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to court-approved agreement that settles a class action
lawsuit filed in Minnesota against the Symantec Corporation and a
former vendor remains pending, according to the Company's Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2017.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.
alleging violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the
California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment related to
prior sales of Extended Download Service ("EDS") and Norton
Download Insurance ("NDI").

On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these
products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011.

In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs US$30
million, which the Company accrued.

On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was subsequently paid into escrow by the
Company.

The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and entered
judgment in the case.  Objectors to the settlement have appealed
to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the Court's
approval of the settlement.

Symantec Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
cybersecurity solutions worldwide.  It operates through two
segments, Consumer Digital Safety and Enterprise Security.  It
markets and sells its products and related services through direct
sales force, direct marketing and co-marketing programs, e-
commerce and telesales platforms, distributors, Internet-based
resellers, system builders, Internet service providers, employee
benefits providers, wireless carriers, retailers, original
equipment manufacturers, and retail and online stores.  Symantec
Corporation was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California.


SYSCO CORP: Suit by Lit'l Pepper Gourmet Moved to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc.,
Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v, Sysco Corporation and Does 1 through 20, the
Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00017406-CU-BT-CTL, was removed on
June 16, 2017, from the Superior Court of California, County of
San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-01232-L-BLM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz.

Sysco Corporation is an American multinational corporation
involved in marketing and distributing food products to
restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, hotels and
inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas William Armstrong, Esq.
          PRICE ARMSTRONG, LLC
          2421 Second Avenue North, Suite 1
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 208 9588
          Facsimile: (205) 208 9598
          E-mail: nick@pricearmstrong.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark Riera, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704
          Telephone: (213) 688 9500
          Facsimile: (213) 599 2669
          E-mail: mark.riera@akerman.com


TABATCHNICK FINE: Resolves Spat Over GMO Ingredients
----------------------------------------------------
Shayna Posses, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida consumer
on June 9 dropped his proposed class action claiming that a
family-owned New Jersey soup maker duped shoppers into believing
its products are all-natural when they actually contain a number
of genetically modified ingredients.

U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles tossed the suit the same day
Jerome Ramsaran agreed to voluntarily dismiss claims that
Tabatchnick Fine Foods Inc. persuaded him to buy at least four
types of prepackaged soup by deceptively touting them as all-
natural despite the use of GMO ingredients, like soy, corn and
canola.

"This matter having been amicably resolved by and between
plaintiff Jerome Ramsaran, and defendant, Tabatchnick Fine Foods
Inc., it is hereby stipulated and agreed that this action is
hereby dismissed with prejudice with each party to bear their own
costs, fees, and expenses," Ramsaran's notice of voluntary
dismissal said.

Details about the terms of the resolution weren't immediately
available on June 9. A representative for Ramsaran declined to
comment, and Tabatchnick didn't immediately return a request for
comment.

The Broward County, Florida, resident's April complaint alleged
that he and other consumers relied on the all-natural
representations on Tabatchnick's packaging and website when
purchasing the company's products, which include kosher soups,
side dishes and broths.

However, Ramsaran claimed, though consumers expected to buy
products that contained wholesome ingredients untouched by
scientific modification, it turns out that purchasers were
actually eating "bioengineered, artificial and synthetic
ingredients."

GMOs are generally crops that have been genetically modified to
enhance certain traits, such as increased resistance to
herbicides. Genetic engineering can carry risks, including
unexpected toxic or allergenic effects, Ramsaran said.

Federal regulations define "all-natural" products as having no
artificial or synthetic ingredients, nor any ingredients that have
been more than minimally processed, he said, arguing that any
organism that has been bioengineered can no longer be described in
that way.

In buying the soups, Ramsaran said he reasonably relied on the
company's "all-natural" advertising, given its strategic branding
as a wholesome food company. That branding is further supported by
statements on the company's website, including its description of
its soups as "made from the highest quality, natural ingredients,"
he said.

Ramsaran compared being tricked into eating GMOs to a Muslim
eating "vegetarian" soup that actually contains pork, or a
vegetarian eating cereal that contains "mouse parts."

At minimum, Tabatchnick should stop labeling its products "all-
natural" or should identify in its advertising which products
contain GMOs, Ramsaran said.

The consumer alleged claims including negligent misrepresentation,
breach of implied and express warranties, and violations of
Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, seeking to
represent a class comprising anyone in the United States who
bought products from Tabatchnick containing a GMO ingredient
within the past four years.

Ramsaran is represented by Angela Arango-Chaffin, Esq. --
angela@chaffinlawfirm.com -- of The Chaffin Law Firm and Alexander
J. Korolinsky, Esq. -- korolinsky@outlook.com -- of The Law
Offices of Alexander J. Korolinsky, P.A.

Counsel information for Tabatchnick wasn't immediately available
on June 9.

The suit is Jerome Ramsaran v. Tabatchnick Fine Foods Inc., suit
number 0:17-cv-60794, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. [GN]


TRANSUNION LLC: Jury Awards $60MM to Consumers in FCRA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A $60 million jury verdict awarded on June 20 to consumers whose
credit reports misidentified them as terrorists and criminals
could have been blocked by forced arbitration or a class-action
ban, showing the importance of a rule expected to be finalized
this summer by the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB), according to the Fair Arbitration Now coalition.

The jury award came in a nationwide class action on behalf of more
than 8,000 consumers, finding that the credit reporting agency
TransUnion violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it
carelessly misidentified the consumers as terrorists and criminals
when people sought auto loans or bank accounts, confusing the
consumers with similarly named individuals on a government watch
list.

"People who were falsely labeled as terrorists or drug dealers
would have been blocked from their day in court if TransUnion had
slipped in a forced arbitration clause as it has tried to do in
the past," said Remington A. Gregg, Counsel for Civil Justice and
Consumer Rights for Public Citizen's Congress Watch division.

The CFPB has proposed a rule that would prohibit forced
arbitration clauses with class-action bans in consumer financial
contracts.  A final rule is expected this summer, but Congress may
attempt to block it.  Forced arbitration clauses are fine-print
clauses in contracts that prohibit consumers from suing in court
and force them to bring disputes before a private arbitrator,
often chosen by the company.  Forced arbitration clauses are often
combined with class-action bans, which prohibit people from
banding together to address widespread wrongdoing.

"Class actions are critical to stop widespread wrongdoing.
TransUnion was sued years ago for confusing a consumer with a
terrorist, but the company kept up its reckless practices, making
this class action essential to helping the 8,000 people who were
harmed," said Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National
Consumer Law Center.

TransUnion has tried to bind people to forced arbitration when
they use its website or sign up for its credit monitoring
services, but in this case, lead plaintiff Sergio Ramirez did not
have to contend with a forced arbitration clause or a class-action
ban because there was no agreement between him and TransUnion.
"In most cases, people can't avoid fine-print forced arbitration
clauses in bank accounts, credit cards and other loans, taking
away their day in court when the company violates the law," said
Saunders.

The case is Sergio L. Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Fair Arbitration Now is a coalition of more than 75 organizations
and individuals who support ending the predatory practice of
forced arbitration in consumer and non-bargaining employment
contracts.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Orders $500 Bond in Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Diego, on June 20, ordered the woman who
appealed the $25 million Trump University settlement to the Ninth
Circuit to pay a $500 appeal bond, hundreds of thousands less than
what class members had requested.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel gave Florida-based attorney
Sherri Simpson a week to pay a $500 appeal bond to cover taxable
costs associated with her appeal filed with the Ninth Circuit on
May 1.

Class members, frustrated that Simpson's appeal will slow down
their own payouts from the settlements, wanted the bond set much
higher.

Simpson initially filed an objection to the settlement before it
was formally approved by Curiel on March 31. Curiel denied
Simpson's objection, finding the settlement -- which would allow
former students of President Donald Trump's now-defunct real
estate school to recover 90 percent of what they paid -- was fair.

The Florida woman wants to opt out as a class member to file her
own lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, which would triple her damages if she
prevailed.

The Ninth Circuit agreed to expedite hearing the case and is
expected to take it up later this year.

Gary Friedman, Simpson's attorney, said in a phone interview that
they "got exactly what we asked for" from Curiel.

"We didn't contest the idea of an appeal bond, we never asked for
zero, we asked for $500," Friedman said.

The order scraps a hearing scheduled in San Diego for June 21,
although Friedman had already traveled to California from New York
to argue his case before Curiel.

The Trump University class members had initially asked for a
$220,000 bond, which they later lowered to $147,000 after the
Ninth Circuit agreed to expedite hearing the case.

Curiel's  10-page order found a $500 bond covering costs
associated with preparing the appeal -- including transcript fees,
court appointed experts, printing and other costs -- was
appropriate and that Simpson is financially able to pay it.

In rejecting the class' request for a $147,000 bond to cover
settlement administration costs for the class, Curiel found
California laws would not apply in Simpson's case because she is a
Florida resident.

"In the absence of an applicable fee-shifting statute, including
settlement administration expenses in Simpson's appeal bond would
not be authorized by law," Curiel wrote.

The appeal stalls payments to thousands of Trump University
students hoping to pay back debt incurred when they shelled out up
to $35,000 to learn purported insider real estate secrets from
instructors touted to be handpicked by Trump himself.

Many of the class members are elderly, with class attorneys
confirming in recently filed court documents that some have died
while waiting to receive their settlement checks from the seven-
year-long litigation.

Trump admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement. He paid
the $25 million into an escrow account days before being sworn in
as President.

All appeal briefs must be filed with the Ninth Circuit by July 26.


UBER TECH: Drivers Ask Judge to Nullify Arbitration Clauses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that drivers who lost their jobs last year when Uber pulled out of
Austin, Texas, asked a federal judge in San Francisco, June 15, to
nullify arbitration clauses that would block them from suing the
ride-hailing giant as a class.

Lead plaintiff Todd Johnston sued Uber in June 2016, claiming it
violated the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act when it abruptly stopped operating in Austin, Texas.

The San Francisco-based startup pulled out of the Texas capital in
May last year after voters rejected an Uber and Lyft-backed
proposal to repeal a city law requiring stringent, fingerprint
background checks for drivers.

During a hearing in the Northern District of California on June
15, class attorney John Davis told U.S. District Judge Edward Chen
that the WARN Act contains a "contrary congressional command" that
guarantees workers the right to sue their employer as a class.

"The statute says you may file a class action and makes that non-
waivable in contracts," Davis said.

The WARN Act, passed by a veto-proof supermajority in 1988 without
the approval of President Ronald Reagan, requires companies with
more than 100 employees to give at least 60 days notice before a
mass layoff.

Representing Uber, attorney Keith Jacoby contended that while the
WARN Act clearly gives workers the right to sue collectively, it
does not override another statute, the Federal Arbitration Act,
which guarantees the right to resolve disputes through private
arbitration.

"An arbitration agreement is the choice this person made -- to sue
individually," Jacoby said of Johnston. "Once we start talking
about arbitration agreements, this hearing is over."

In September last year, the Ninth Circuit overturned Chen's ruling
in a separate case and held that Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration
agreements for drivers were valid.

That ruling had ripple effects for multiple labor class actions
against Uber. The central dispute in those suits was whether Uber
misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors -- which is
the same issue that must be resolved before Austin drivers can
pursue their claims of WARN Act violations.

Regardless of the Ninth Circuit's arbitration ruling, Davis says
WARN Act violations are a horse of a different color because such
violations must be litigated in district court and that the right
to pursue those claims as a class cannot be waived.

The plain language of the statute, which includes a U.S. District
Court "exclusive venue" provision, shows that Congress intended
for employees to be fully empowered to litigate WARN Act
violations collectively in federal court, Davis told the judge.

In a brief opposing Uber's motion to compel arbitration and
dismiss the suit, the drivers quoted one of the WARN Act's early
sponsors, the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, who said the bill's
provisions were "too important as a matter of public policy to be
left to the vagaries of private contract." Kennedy also said the
law was drafted in "recognition of the fact that private
plaintiffs will be functioning as private attorneys-general" to
enforce the statute.

"Why would Congress write the WARN Act at all and have no
enforcement authority?" Davis asked on June 15 hearing.

Appearing to disagree with Davis' interpretation, Chen replied
that a driver could still seek damages for WARN Act violations
through individual arbitration.

"One could argue there is still an enforcement mechanism," Chen
said.

"It would be an incredibly weak statute," Davis replied.

Also weighing in on the dispute, Jacoby called the idea that WARN
Act violations cannot be resolved through individual arbitration a
false premise.

Nothing in "the plain language of the statute" says that "Mr.
Johnston is not permitted to contractually agree to pursue his
rights in arbitration," Jacoby told the judge.

After about an hour of debate, Chen said he would take the
arguments under advisement.

Davis is with Slack & Davis in Austin. Jacoby is with Littler
Mendelson in San Francisco.

A similar lawsuit against Lyft was dismissed in November last year
after the lead plaintiff, David Thorton, died, and no
representative of his estate stepped forward to continue the
litigation.

Both Uber and Lyft returned to Austin late last month after the
Texas governor approved a new state law that places less
restrictive rules on digital-based ride-hailing firms and bars
local governments from regulating such services.

The court hearing over mass layoffs in Austin comes during a
tumultuous week for Uber, in which its CEO Travis Kalanick took a
leave of absence, a board of directors member resigned after
making a sexist remark, and a rape victim filed invasion of
privacy claims against the company -- even as it remains embroiled
in another lawsuit accusing it of stealing self-driving car
technology from a Google-owned rival.


UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Oregon Court Dismisses Suit Over Cascade Ice
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Oregon granted defendant's motion to dismiss the
case VICKY SILVA, an Oregon consumer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIQUE BEVERAGE
COMPANY, LLC, a foreign corporation, Defendant, No. 3:17-cv-00391-
HZ (D. Org.).

Plaintiff Vicky Silva purchased a beverage product manufactured by
defendant Unique Beverage Company, LLC which was labeled as
Cascade Ice. The front label depicted large colorful coconuts
along with the word coconut. She asserts that the product contains
no coconut, coconut water, coconut juice, coconut pulp, coconut
jelly, or coconut natural flavor. Additionally, she contends it
does not taste like coconut and has no coconut health qualities.
Plaintiff alleges that the labels on the product violate Oregon
Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) 646.608(1)(b) because they cause the
likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding as to the source of
defendant's coconut product. Further, she contends that the labels
violate O.R.S. 646.608(1)(e) because they falsely represent that
defendant's coconut product has coconut qualities, that the
product has at least some characteristic of coconut, that the
product has the quality or taste of coconut, and that the product
has at least some coconut health benefits or qualities. She also
alleges that the labels violate O.R.S. 646.609(1)(g), because they
falsely represent that Defendant's coconut product has at least
some of the coconut health qualities that consumers seek out in
coconut products and has the quality or taste of coconut.

Plaintiff contends that every consumer who purchased defendant's
Cascade Ice coconut water product suffered an actual ascertainable
loss of their purchase price, as well as an actual ascertainable
loss of the difference between the value of the product they
received, and the increased value that a product that tasted like
coconut and had at least some actual coconut or coconut-related
health properties would have had. Plaintiff seeks actual damages
or $200 statutory damages. Finally, based on her allegation that
defendant's violation of the Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act
(UTPA) was reckless and in pursuit of profit, she seeks punitive
damages.

Defendant moves to dismiss the amended complaint for several
reasons. First, it argues that the UTPA claims are preempted by
federal law. Second, it argues that plaintiff did not suffer an
ascertainable loss as required to state a UTPA claim. Third,
defendant contends that plaintiff fails to allege the elements of
fraud with particularity. Fourth, defendant asserts that plaintiff
lacks standing to seek injunctive relief.

Judge Hernandez denied defendant's motion to dismiss as the
injunctive relief claim but is otherwise granted. Defendant's
request for judicial notice is granted and although plaintiff's
UTPA claim is not preempted, it fails to state a claim. Judge
Hernandez sees that an amendment may be able to cure the
deficiencies, he granted plaintiff leave to amend and any amended
complaint is due within fourteen days of the date of the opinion.

Judge Hernandez agrees with defendant that the amended complaint
must be dismissed but reject it's contention that the dismissal
must be with prejudice, however. Defendant's arguments are
essentially an assessment of the facts, contending among other
things, that because the words coconut water and coconut milk do
not appear anywhere on the label, defendant made no representation
that its Cascade Ice product was anything other than naturally-
flavored spring water; any loss plaintiff might have sustained was
not caused by defendant  and no rational consumers could possibly
be confused by defendant's product label or by its express
disclaimers and think they are buying `coconut water. Such
arguments are premature and not appropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6)
dismissal motion.

A copy of Judge Hernandez's opinion and order dated June 15, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/uqNCiG from Leagle.com.

Vicky Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin J. Meiselas --
meiselas@geragos.com -- Mark J. Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- at
Geragos & Geragos APC; Michael R. Fuller -- at Olsen Daines PC

Unique Beverage Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by:

     Joe Hochman, Esq.
     Hochman Legal Group, PLLC
     515 116th Avenue N.E. Suite 230
     Bellevue, WA 98004
     Tel: 425-392-1548
     Fax: 425-526-5791


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Leitner" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Jacob Leitner, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-03727 (E.D.N.Y., June 20, 2017).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com

UNITED VAN: Delivery Truck Drivers Alleges Misclassified Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for St. Louis Record, reports that a
Tennessee delivery truck driver has filed a class-action lawsuit
against a moving company, citing alleged violation of workers'
compensation acts.

Sammy Davis filed a complaint June 2 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri against United Van Lines LLC,
alleging that the defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL).

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he has been
misclassified as an independent contractor after working for more
than a decade with the defendant. The plaintiff claims employees
were paid based on a percentage of the line haul, wherein wages
depend on the amount the defendants received from customers and
were required to pay for repairs, lease payments, fuel, labor and
other expenses. The complaint also alleges that the plaintiff
worked at least 16 hours a day. As a result, the plaintiff and
other drivers were paid less than $7.25 for each hour that they
worked and did not receive overtime compensation.

The plaintiff holds United Van Lines responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to pay employees for all hours worked,
failed to pay overtime compensation, failed to track employees
hours beyond the hours tracked by the US Department of
Transportation and failed to pay the minimum wage as required by
law.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks award for damages
for compensation, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees
and expert fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and all such
further legal and equitable relief as the court deems just and
proper. He is represented by John F. Edgar, Esq. --
jfe@edgardlawfirm.com -- and Matthew T. Swift, Esq. --
mts@edgarlawfirm.com --  of Edgar Law Firm LLC in Kansas City,
Missouri.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri case
number 4:17-cv-01614-RLW [GN]


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: "Heed" Suit Moved to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit captioned David Heed, Individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Universal Health Services Inc., Alan B. Miller, and Steve Filton,
the Defendants, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, Teamsters Local
456 Annuity Fund, Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern
Canada, and City of Providence, the Defendants, Case No. 16-09499
(E.D. Pa., June 21, 2017), was transferred on June 21, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division, Los Angeles), to the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02817-LS to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lawrence F.
Stengel.

Universal Health is an American Fortune 500 company based in King
of Prussia, Pennsylvania. It is one of the largest hospital
management companies in the United States.[BN]

Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund is represented by:

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com

Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada is
represented by:

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: danim@rgrdlaw.com


USAA CASUALTY: "Levine" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mona K. Levine, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. USAA
Casualty Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 16-02017-CA-
3089, was removed on June 16, 2017 from the 4th Judicial Circuit
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-22255-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company provides property and causality
insurance. The company was incorporated in 1969 as United Services
Casualty Insurance.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Morris Holt, Esq.
          Irene Susan Motles, Esq.
          MAYNARD COOPER , GALE, PC
          1901 6th Avenue North, Suite 2400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 254 1102
          Facsimile: (205) 254 1999
          E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com
                  imotles@maynardcooper.com


VICTORY: Settles Suit for 40,000 Free Plastic Shopping Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------
Israel National News reports that 40,000 free plastic shopping
bags will be provided to "Victory" supermarket customers in the
western Samaria towns of Elkana and Oranit.

The free bags are part of a settlement reached during a class
action lawsuit brought by former Samaria Regional Council Head
Gershon Mesika against the Victory, Shufersal, and Rami Levi
supermarket chains.

According to Mesika, these supermarket chains charge customers 10
agorot per plastic bag, because of the "plastic bag law," despite
the fact that the law has not yet been applied to Judea and
Samaria.

In the settlement, Victory agreed to provide customers with 40,000
free plastic bags, as well as to provide 3,000 NIS worth of
compensation to Mesika and 8,000 NIS of compensation to Mesika's
lawyer.

The lawsuits against Shufersal and Rami Levi have not yet reached
a conclusion, because of the "decisions of benefit vs loss in
refuting the prosecution's claims."

The supermarket chains also said signs outside the stores in Judea
and Samaria make it clear that the price of plastic bags is
because of the chain's policy and not because of the law.

However, they agreed to provide 500 NIS of store credit to anyone
Mesika chose, in exchange for a repeal of the suit.

Herzliya Magistrates Court Judge Yaakov Shaked approved the
requests and said both agreements are reasonable. [GN]


VIRGIN AMERICA: Class Suit by Flight Attendants Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Alaska Air Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2017, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Virgin America
continues to defend a class action lawsuit by three flight
attendants.

In 2015, three flight attendants filed a class action lawsuit
seeking to represent all Virgin America flight attendants for
damages based on alleged violations of California and City of San
Francisco wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs received class
certification in November 2016.

Virgin America filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to
dismiss all claims on various federal preemption grounds. In
January 2017, the Court denied in part and granted in part Virgin
America's motion.

Virgin America believes the claims in this case are without
factual and legal merit and intends to defend this lawsuit.

On December 14, 2016, the Company acquired 100% of the outstanding
common shares and voting interest of Virgin America for $57 per
share, or total cash consideration of $2.6 billion.



VWR CORP: Bushansky et al. Challenge $6.4B Sale to Avantor
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
directors are selling VWR Corp. (chemicals and scientific
supplies), of Radnor, Pa., too cheaply through an unfair process
to (nonparty) India-based Avantor, for $33.25 or $6.4 billion,
shareholders say in a federal class action in Philadelphia.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. VWR CORPORATION,
MANUEL A.H. BROCKE-BENZ, HARRY M. JANSEN KRAEMER, JR., NICHOLAS W.
ALEXOS, ROBERT L. BARCHI, EDWARD A. BLECHSCHMIDT, ROBERT P.
DECRESCE, PAMELA FORBES LIEBERMAN, TIMOTHY P. SULLIVAN, and ROBERT
J. ZOLLARS, Defendants., Case 2:17-cv-02616-WB (E.D. Pa., June 12,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Tel: (610) 667-6200
     Fax: (610) 667-9029
     E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
     E-mail: mackerman@brodskysmith.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, New York 10036
     Tel: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010


WISCONSIN: Juvenile Inmates File Civil Rights Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Patrick Marley and Jason Stein, writing for Journal Sentinel,
report that nearly 30 juvenile inmates were placed in solitary
confinement on average each day last month in Wisconsin's teen
prison, according to records filed on June 9 in federal court as
part of a civil rights lawsuit.

That represents more than 16% of the population at Lincoln Hills
School for Boys and Copper Lake School for Girls, which share a
campus 30 miles north of Wausau.

The filings also show pepper spray was used at the facilities more
than 300 times from January 2016 through April 2017 -- or more
than 19 times per month on average.

On June 9's filings also included photos showing the equipment the
prison uses to shackle teen inmates to desks. The apparatus
appears to leave them with little room to maneuver to write essays
or perform other school work.

Department of Corrections spokesman Tristan Cook declined comment
because the litigation is ongoing.

The documents were submitted to the federal court in Madison as
part of a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of inmates by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin.

The group is seeking to curb the use of pepper spray and solitary
confinement at the prison complex.

The state responded to the ACLU claims on May 30 by acknowledging
that since January 2016 Lincoln Hills staff have used pepper spray
on youths in mechanical restraints, and that since January 2016
some youths at Lincoln Hills have spent more than 180 days total
in solitary confinement.

Other documents filed by the ACLU showed the case files for a
Lincoln Hills inmate who had treatment interrupted because he was
repeatedly moved into restricted units and security placements for
poor behavior.

Separately, Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake have been the subject of
a criminal investigation into prisoner abuse and child neglect for
more than 2-1/2 years. Prosecutors have not said whether they
expect to charge anyone or how much longer their probe will take.

Two other lawsuits have been filed against the state over the
prison complex -- one by a former inmate who was severely brain
damaged after she attempted suicide there and one by a former
inmate who says he was slammed to the ground by a guard, sprayed
with pepper spray and confined to a cell that reeked of urine and
feces. [GN]


WORD ENTERPRISES: McFarlin Moves to Certify Class of Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled CHAD MCFARLIN, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. THE WORD
ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-12536-GAD-APP (E.D.
Mich.), moves for an order certifying Count II of the complaint as
a class action and authorizing the Plaintiff to send notice of the
case to all current and former delivery drivers, who worked for
the Defendants during the recovery period.

On July 6, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class and collective action
complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan
minimum wage law to recover the unpaid wages.

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks certification of this class:

     All current and former delivery drivers employed by
     Defendants at any time from July 6, 2013 [three years prior
     to the filing of this lawsuit] through the present.

The Plaintiff also seeks designation as representative of the
class and the designation of the law firms of Blanchard & Walker
PLLC and Weinhaus & Potashnick as Class Counsel.  The Plaintiff
further seeks approval of the form of class notice attached to the
Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iQwpVxMA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 929-4313
          E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Theuer, Esq.
          Warren H. Krueger, Esq.
          LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C.
          124 West Allegan, Suite 700
          Lansing, MI 48933
          Telephone: (517) 482-2400
          Facsimile: (517) 853-8689
          E-mail: jstheuer@loomislaw.com
                  whkrueger@loomislaw.com



WWF OPERATING: Suit over Silk Almondmilk Label Referred to FDA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Sacramento, June 6, stayed a class action that
claims WWF Operating Co.'s Silk Almondmilk is nutritionally
superior to dairy milk, and should be labeled "imitation" milk,
finding it an issue of first impression that falls within the
authority of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill said the case is referred to
the FDA and stayed pending a determination from the FDA on whether
Defendant's products must be labeled "imitation" under 21 C.F.R.
Sec. 101.3(e), or when it appears the FDA does not intend to
address the matter.  The parties are directed to submit joint
status reports every six months updating the Court on the FDA
proceedings and, if appropriate, the parties' positions on how
this case should proceed in light of those proceedings.

The case is captioned, MELANIE KELLEY Plaintiff, v. WWF OPERATING
COMPANY, Defendant., Case 1:17-cv-00117-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal., June
6, 2017).


* House Votes to Get Rid of Some Consumer Protections
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Muschick, writing for The Morning Call, reports that the
former FBI director's troubling testimony about the president
dominated the news from Washington and overshadowed something else
that's alarming -- the increasing attacks on your consumer
protections.

The U.S. House approved legislation to weaken the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, formed to watch out for the little
guy after the recession, to the point where it would be like a cop
who can't arrest anyone or even investigate some crimes.

In the past six years, that agency has saved 29 million consumers
a total of nearly $12 billion and exposed fraud, gimmicks and
shady actions by banks and other financial businesses, including
the Wells Fargo fake account scandal.

That wasn't impressive enough for the 233 representatives, all of
them Republicans, who voted on June 8 for the Financial Choice
Act. No Democrats voted for the bill, which passed by a vote of
233-186.

Political insiders speculate that approval isn't likely in the
Senate, at least in the bill's current form. Regardless of the
final outcome, the vote was a disturbing sign.

The legislation would carry out President Donald Trump's wish to
repeal parts of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, the 2010 law that increased oversight of banks,
prohibited speculative lending and limited use of some risky
investments in response to the economic crisis.

The president and Republican lawmakers say the law went too far
and dried up credit, preventing the economy from growing. They say
its onerous requirements have driven many small community banks
out of business.

The problem with the legislation is it also would needlessly gut
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created by the
Dodd-Frank law.

The legislation would remove the agency's authority to stop
unfair, deceptive and abusive acts; prohibit it from regulating
payday lenders and vehicle title loans; and halt its pending
effort to protect consumers from being forced to resolve disputes
in arbitration instead of through a class-action lawsuit.

The bureau's funding stream would be changed so it would come from
Congress instead of the Federal Reserve, and the president could
remove the director at will.

If lawmakers have a problem with the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, they should deal with that separately instead of burying
these changes in a larger bill.

Consumer advocates were disappointed by June 8's vote.

"This bill cripples the CFPB's ability to stand up to the big
banks and predatory lenders and puts hardworking families at risk
of losing their money to unfair financial practices," Pamela
Banks, senior counsel for Consumers Union, said in a statement.

Twenty state attorneys general, including Pennsylvania Attorney
General Josh Shapiro, lobbied lawmakers to reject the Financial
Choice Act.

"Pennsylvanians need more protection from financial institutions
that prey on them, not less," Shapiro said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Matt Cartwright, a Democrat who represents parts of
Northampton, Carbon and Monroe counties and all of Schuylkill
County, said that's why he opposed it.

"While Dodd-Frank is not perfect, and amendments would be
appropriate, this bill, the so-called Financial Choice Act, is an
over-the-top wash away of the protections Dodd-Frank gave this
country," Cartwright said in a statement.

U.S. Rep. Charlie Dent, a Republican who represents Lehigh County
and parts of Berks and Northampton counties, said he voted for the
bill because the financial regulatory system needs reform. He said
community banks and credit unions are struggling under regulations
intended to constrain large banks and financial firms.

"We no longer have National Penn Bank in large part because of the
very costly compliance requirements of the CFPB," Dent told me in
an interview on June 9.

Strong consumer protections are needed but there are other
agencies that oversee the banking world, he said. The Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau currently operates with no
accountability to Congress, the president and taxpayers, and that
must change, he said.

"I'm not aware of any other entity in the federal system that has
this level of independence," Dent said.

The legislation now is in the hands of the Senate, where its
chances of passing as written are slim because it would need
Democratic support.

Pennsylvania's Democratic senator, Bob Casey, opposes the
legislation.

"Repealing rules for Wall Street is an insult to the middle class
families who were devastated by the financial crisis," he said in
a statement.

Republican Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey has been among the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau critics who say the agency is
unnecessary and lacks accountability. His office said in a
statement the Dodd-Frank law is "an ill-conceived response to the
financial crisis."

"Passage of the Financial Choice Act represents an important step
forward in improving our financial regulatory system, ending bank
bailouts and fostering economic growth," the statement said.

When the Senate considers this legislation, its members should
keep in mind that they would be replacing a law accused of going
too far with one that would do the same. [GN]




                         *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *